Why would we expect an Anti-Universe to be detectable?

[TakenItSeriously]

It's my understanding that anti-matter travels backwards in time. I think that while this may not make much sense to us in our universe, (such as reducing entropy when our universe increases entropy) it seems to make perfect sense for antimatter that was created from the Big Bang.

 

If we put our time datum of 0 at the instant of the Big Bang and counted time forward as matter and energy "inflated" after the Big Bang, then any antimatter that was created in the same Big Bang would then "inflate" in negative time counting backwards from 0.

 

While we would say that antimatter was moving backwards in time, an antimatter version of us in the anti-universe would simply discard the negative we arbitrarily assigned to them and experience it as moving forward in time. They would still experience entropy increase as the absolute value of time increased.

 

I believe that this is something like what CPT theory suggests though I never saw it in reference to negative time before time.

 

So, my question is why would we see the absence of anti-matter as a mystery since anti-matter created directly from the Big Bang could never have coexisted with matter from the same BigBang at any point in time? Matter and antimatter would exist on opposite timelines.

[Mordred]

Ok antimatter doesn't travel back in time. The only difference between antimatter and matter is the charge is opposite. We can create and measure antimatter with current instruments. The Earth is bombarded with antimatter from cosmic rays. The LHC can create antimatter. So it is measurable and doesn't travel back in time.

 

 

The backwards in time antimatter conjecture was long before antimatter was understood.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

The main problem here is that "anti-matter travels backwards in time" is not the right phrasing, which has probably been whittled down and reshaped in all of the retellings, much like the "whisper" game. Antimatter traveling forward in time is indistinguishable from matter traveling backward in time. It's represented that way in Feynman diagram.

[Strange]

We know antimatter exists: we can detect it, and it is used in a variety of technologies.

 

If there were an anti-matter universe, or even galaxy, then we would see the effects of matter and antimatter annihilating.

[imatfaal]

We know antimatter exists: we can detect it, and it is used in a variety of technologies.

 

If there were an anti-matter universe, or even galaxy, then we would see the effects of matter and antimatter annihilating.

 

We are still looking for the evidence - I am not sure we are happy to say we have completed the search at current levels of technology for the tell-tale signs.

 

The inter-cluster voids are very very empty and - purely speculatively - any annihilation would produce radiation which would provide a net radiative pressure against the tiny amount of matter on either side (ie any annihilation at boundary will produce radiation that leaves boundary and thus any pressure on particles getting close to boundary will be net back away from boundary). This pressure would be tiny tiny - but the big voids are very sparse.

[Strange]

Good point. (Maybe it would have been better to say "We should be able to see the effects...")

[studiot]

Antimatter was postulated in 1928, experimentally confirmed in 1933 and first human use made in 1951.

 

http://timeline.web.cern.ch/timelines/Discovering-the-positron

[John Cuthber]

On a rather semantic point,

Since the Universe is everything, where would you find space for an anti Universe?

On a slightly more useful level, if there were a star somewhere in the universe which by some weird quirk was made entirely of anti-matter then it would"burn" in pretty much the same was as an ordinary star.

The "obvious" difference is that it would emit anti-photons.

 

But the photon is its own anti-particle insofar as a photon and an anti-photon look the same.

So why would we not expect to see light from and "anti-star"?

[TakenItSeriously]

On a rather semantic point,

Since the Universe is everything, where would you find space for an anti Universe?

 

The anti-universe would exist in Negative Spacetime.

 

After the Big Bang, antimatter would appear and travel backwards in time while matter would appear and travel forwards in time. This means that matter and antimatter would never have coexisted in the same spacetime so they could not have been annihilated with each other.

 

However, according to CPT symmetry theorem, where C is charge, P is linear and angular momentum, and T is time, if antimatter were to exhibit the opposite of all three properties than an anti-universe would appear as being the same as our matter universe.

 

Now if the anti-universe was connected to our universe through entanglement, then you can have a differential universe that could resolve many things.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Sensei]

Annihilation of anti-matter, precisely positrons, produced in proton-proton fusion is responsible for 7.65% of energy emitted by our Sun. Now.

 

Anybody with powerful enough electrostatic generator can make their own anti-matter easily (electron-positron pairs).

 

Proton-rich unstable isotopes of elements are emitting anti-matter positrons as well.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sensei

[TakenItSeriously]

Annihilation of anti-matter, precisely positrons, produced in proton-proton fusion is responsible for 7.65% of energy emitted by our Sun. Now.

 

Anybody with powerful enough electrostatic generator can make their own anti-matter easily (electron-positron pairs).

 

Proton-rich unstable isotopes of elements are emitting anti-matter positrons as well.

Apparently, I chose a bad title as many are answering the question out of context of the OP or, as I tried to re-explain the question in post #9.

 

My question was intended to be asking that if antimatter existed in negative time (traveled backwards in time from the point of it's creation at the Big Bang) then looking for it in our own spacetime would be pointless.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

The anti-universe would exist in Negative Spacetime.

 

Is there such a thing?

 

Now if the anti-universe was connected to our universe through entanglement, then you can have a differential universe that could resolve many things.

 

What things would this resolve?

And can you show (i.e. mathematically) that this would resolve many things?

My question was intended to be asking that if antimatter existed in negative time (traveled backwards in time from the point of it's creation at the Big Bang) then looking for it in our own spacetime would be pointless.

 

It doesn't.

 

And looking for it isn't pointless as we have found it.

[michel123456]

The main problem here is that "anti-matter travels backwards in time" is not the right phrasing, which has probably been whittled down and reshaped in all of the retellings, much like the "whisper" game. Antimatter traveling forward in time is indistinguishable from matter traveling backward in time. It's represented that way in Feynman diagram.

When something is "indistinguishable" from something else, doesn't that mean that they are the same thing?

[Sensei]

When something is "indistinguishable" from something else, doesn't that mean that they are the same thing?

 

Take for example two electrons. With the all properties equal.

They have the same charge, the same velocity vector, the same kinetic energy, the same momentum, the same relativistic mass, etc. etc.

Are they "the same thing".. ?

or

Are they "the same kind", rather.. ?

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sensei

[TakenItSeriously]

 

The anti-universe would exist in Negative Spacetime.

Is there such a thing?

Depends on who you ask. According to many well respected physicists, there should exist a universe before the Big Bang that would be symmetrical to our universe.

 

 

Now if the anti-universe was connected to our universe through entanglement, then you can have a differential universe that could resolve many things.

What things would this resolve?

And can you show (i.e. mathematically) that this would resolve many things?

• Well, it would explain where all the antimatter went for one.
• It would also help to explain how we got everything from nothing since a differential universe would yield a net of nothing.
• Without getting too involved into it, a differential universe could provide for a differential particle wave model that may make a little more sense than QM alone. For instance, entanglement would fall out naturally since every act of observation would occur simultaneously on both ends in a matter/antimatter universe that was closely linked together.
• While I'm still looking into singularities, I've seen many references which I will try to locate, that seem to imply that a differential universe could resolve the singularity.

 

My question was intended to be asking that if antimatter existed in negative time (traveled backwards in time from the point of its creation at the Big Bang) then looking for it in our own universe would be pointless.

It doesn't.

And looking for it isn't pointless as we have found it.

I know that we have discovered antimatter that came from high energy events and have even created it with the LHC.

 

I'm speaking of the original anti-universe that would account for the missing antimatter without needing to annihilate trillions times the mass over trillions of big bangs, just to create a single universe.

 

To me, such a theory seems to suggest that God is not much more clever than a monkey painting a Rembrandt.

 

Take for example two electrons. With the all properties equal.

They have the same charge, the same velocity vector, the same kinetic energy, the same momentum, the same relativistic mass, etc. etc.

Are they "the same thing".. ?

or

Are they "the same kind", rather.. ?

I agree that they may not necessarily be equivalent but it doesn't deny it either. General relativity does rely on warped space time being the equivalent to the angular momentum of gravity. It's true that general relativity it has been validated by lensing but it's difficult to imagine a way to validate that antimatter would exhibit properties that could demonstrate reverse time properties. Perhaps creating an anti-atom that could show a reverse decay effect. Edited January 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[John Cuthber]

The anti-universe would exist in Negative Spacetime.

 

If we pretend, for the minute, that negative space time has a meaning then it's part of the Universe. You postulate (without evidence, btw) that the big bang created two helves to the universe, one where the electrons have positive charge and time goes backwards.

Well, OK, perhaps it does (though there are logical problems with the idea)

But since the bang made the universe, the "left handed" bit of it is still part of the universe -It's just not the bit we are in.

[TakenItSeriously]

If we pretend, for the minute, that negative space time has a meaning then it's part of the Universe. You postulate (without evidence, btw) that the big bang created two helves to the universe, one where the electrons have positive charge and time goes backwards.

Well, OK, perhaps it does (though there are logical problems with the idea)

But since the bang made the universe, the "left handed" bit of it is still part of the universe -It's just not the bit we are in.

True but it would be in a piece of the universe that occurred 15 billion years (or whatever the age of the universe is) before the Big Bang, though it would occupy the same space.

You postulate (without evidence, btw) that the big bang created two helves to the universe, one where the electrons have positive charge and time goes backwards.

Well, OK, perhaps it does (though there are logical problems with the idea)

 

So do we agree that CPT symmetry theory does hold up for antimatter exhibiting negative time properties. I actually think that CPT does take the time property literally, though I don't know if it has been validated beyond just showing all of the properties of negative time.

 

This is actually my favorite way of looking at the differential universe model. The anti-universe would simply be the flip side of our universe. Or each universe would be opposite views of the same coin.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[John Cuthber]

 

So do we agree that CPT symmetry theory does hold up for antimatter exhibiting negative time properties... ?

No, we don't agree on that.

Antimatter is interesting stuff, but you can't use it to find out next week's lottery numbers; it doesn't go back in time.

I was just pointing out that, even if we did, there would still be only one universe.

[TakenItSeriously]

No, we don't agree on that.

Antimatter is interesting stuff, but you can't use it to find out next week's lottery numbers; it doesn't go back in time.

I was just pointing out that, even if we did, there would still be only one universe.

Well, actually, by keeping the anti-universe within the domain of negative time (time before the Big Bang) then it avoids the problems of paradox because then positive time and negative time wouldn't have any points in time in common. You could actually think of it as two distinct timelines (or I guess you would have to call them time rays) that both start at the Big Bang.

 

 

Regarding singularities, as best that I can understand it. Singularity seems to come about with a bounded system where the Big Bang must eventually compress to infinite density which denies Planc's constant where density should not increase to a point beyond which would include spaces smaller than a wavelength.

 

With a symmetrical model that has an expanding universe on either side of it, then we can avoid singularities.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

Depends on who you ask. According to many well respected physicists, there should exist a universe before the Big Bang that would be symmetrical to our universe.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

It would also help to explain how we got everything from nothing since a differential universe would yield a net of nothing.

 

I don't see how. You can't create matter and antimatter from nothing.

 

I know that we have discovered antimatter that came from high energy events and have even created it with the LHC.

 

I don't know what the LHC has to do with it. Creating antimatter doesn't require very high energy events, it happens all the time. It is widely used in industry and medicine.

 

I'm speaking of the original anti-universe that would account for the missing antimatter without needing to annihilate trillions times the mass over trillions of big bangs, just to create a single universe.

 

This sounds like a classic "argument from incredulity". Not very convincing.

 

To me, such a theory seems to suggest that God is not much more clever than a monkey painting a Rembrandt.

 

Judging by the "intelligent design" he is supposed to be responsible for, I wouldn't even rate him that high.

 

 

General relativity does rely on warped space time being the equivalent to the angular momentum of gravity.

 

The "angular momentum of gravity"? What is that?

 

It's true that general relativity it has been validated by lensing

 

And by a huge number of other tests.

 

Perhaps creating an anti-atom that could show a reverse decay effect.

 

There is an ongoing experiment to create enough anti-hydrogen to confirm that it behaves the same way as ordinary matter, as far as gravity is concerned. Although the data on that is not yet conclusive, all other properties appear to be identical to normal matter.

Regarding singularities, as best that I can understand it. Singularity seems to come about with a bounded system where the Big Bang must eventually compress to infinite density which denies Planc's constant where density should not increase to a point beyond which would include spaces smaller than a wavelength.

 

Most people seem to think that the singularity will disappear when we have a theory of quantum gravity.

 

With a symmetrical model that has an expanding universe on either side of it, then we can avoid singularities.

 

Why wouldn't the point where your two timelines start be a singularity?

[TakenItSeriously]

Citation needed.

 

While I'm sure there are plenty of others doing work in this area, Here is a list of some people doing work on theories involving pre-existing states before the Big Bang which I had referenced from the documentary:

 

"What Happened Before the Big Bang"

 

Since I'm giving much more detail than I had planed, I hope it's ok to present some of my theory here as seeing how it all fits together may help with its understanding. I should point out that no existing theory is denied other than the self annihilating universe theory. Aside from that all new parts of my differential theory only fills in the gaps that QM, Relativity, and Cosmology left behind.

 

Professor Michio Kaku *Big Bang from a Pre-existing Energy State.

Professor Andre Linde, Eternal Inflation

Dr Param Singh, Big Bounce Theory

Professor Neil Turok, Brane Theory

Professor Lee Smolin, Cosmological Natural Selection theory

Professor Sir Roger Penrose, *Recycled Universe Theory

 

*Theories which I couldn't find a name for which I had named based on the description given given in the documentary. Sorry if the Names were overlooked as I wasn't planning on giving citations at this time.

 

My differential universe theory seems to be much like the Singh's big bounce theory, only I reversed half of the timeline to turn the bounce that went from a shrinking to an expanding universe across the Big Bang into a single Differential Universe.

 

It's also very close to Brane Theory, in that the two 3D membranes could be represented by the matter and anti-matter universe that made contact at singularities.

 

Another part of my theory not mentioned here includes black holes that all contribute back to the original Big Bang that has a return that exists outside of time. This is similar to Professor Lee Smolins CSN theory which spawns Big Bangs from Black Holes, though his theory does not have all black holes that occur over differential space time all feeding back to the same Big Bang. Instead they spawn separate universes in CSN theory.

 

I don't see how. You can't create matter and antimatter from nothing.

 

Well, the Big Bang theory is trying to do exactly that.

 

I'm only suggesting that it would seem to be far more feasible if it involved a differential universe where you could end up with 0 on both sides of the equation as opposed to a universe that created only matter alone which would seem to force an imbalanced equation.

 

I don't know what the LHC has to do with it. Creating antimatter doesn't require very high energy events, it happens. all the time. It is widely used in industry and medicine.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with the LHC. I made that remark as a reply to your response of:

 

And looking for it isn't pointless as we have found out.

In post number 12. I had assumed that comment was in reference to discovering antimatter or the creation of antimatter that didn't originate from the Big Bang.

 

If I misunderstood that comment and we have found evidence of an anti-universe within our spacetime then I apologize and could you provide a link to your source? As it would pretty much kill my theory.

 

This sounds like a classic "argument from incredulity". Not very convincing.

 

Judging by the "intelligent design" he is supposed to be responsible for, I wouldn't even rate him that high.

 

I'm only suggesting that my theory, even before making any new predictions that can be tested is better than the current best theory that we have, though it doesn't have any data that validates it either. I don't even know if it has a name so I'll call it the big waste theory.

 

 

The "angular momentum of gravity"? What is that?

It was in reference to another thread where a poster had asked if the negative time property of antimatter which behaved behaved exactly like matter traveling backwards through time would fall under General Relativities Equivalency property.

 

In that case, I had agreed with Swansont that it shouldn't be treated the same as warped spaces equivalency to gravity. That's because General Relativity was accepted only after data collected during a solar eclipse demonstrated that the sun warped space as predicted. I only suggested that negative time couldn't be denied by equivalence either.

 

I used the term angular momentum of gravity since warped space seemed to have more relevancy to gravities relationship to an objects angular momentum and seemed to have less to do with its linear momentum.

 

 

And by a huge number of other tests.

 

That's true, I only mentioned the lensing evidence as that was the validating evidence that had made Relativity relevant.

 

In fact, it was a very close call as bad whether and war had prevented validation from the previous two solar eclipses and the only evidence collected so far were some poor photographs that seemed to deny Relativity. Were it not for a last minute parting of the clouds, then relativity would probably have been just another theory that had been overlooked by all accounts.

 

There is an ongoing experiment to create enough anti-hydrogen to confirm that it behaves the same way as ordinary matter, as far as gravity is concerned. Although the data on that is not yet conclusive, all other properties appear to be identical to normal matter.

 

Yeah, I saw that as well. It's what I'd expect. An anti-universe that had things like white holes in it wouldn't fit very well with my differential universe theory.

 

 

Most people seem to think that the singularity will disappear when we have a theory of quantum gravity.

 

There are two parts to singularities as far as I know. There's the quantum singularity that has to do with Plank's constant and the gravitational singularity that I'm still exploring so I might partially agree with that hypothesis.

 

Why wouldn't the point where your two timelines start be a singularity?

 

The Big Bang as a bounded model has the Hubble chart that suggests a smaller and smaller space until infinite density is reached.

 

By using a symmetrical model which expands on either side of the Big Bang, there's no need to hit infinite density. Instead it would begin at some point introducing matter/antimatter within their respective domains using inflation.

 

In a way I think that Hawking was right. In his book, a Brief History in Time, which I had purchased as a cassette tape to listen to on my commute ages ago and I don't recall his quote exactly, but he ended the book suggesting that the universe might begin short of causing a singularity, and that the Big Bang might be viewed as being located someplace north of the North Pole. I'm sure he said it much more eloquently though.

 

I think it's a pretty close description of what a differential universe would look like if you folded the timeline to create a single universe that had two halves of Matter/Antimatter.

Edited January 17, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

While I'm sure there are plenty of others doing work in this area, Here is a list of some people doing work on theories involving pre-existing states before the Big Bang which I had referenced from the documentary:

 

I don't have a problem with the idea of some sort of universe before ours. It was the "symmetrical" bit I was curious about.

 

 

Well, the Big Bang theory is trying to do exactly that.

 

No it isn't. It describes the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state. At some point it cooled enough for some of the energy to be converted into matter and antimatter. They were not created from nothing.

 

 

In post number 12. I had assumed that comment was in reference to discovering antimatter or the creation of antimatter that didn't originate from the Big Bang.

 

If I misunderstood that comment and we have found evidence of an anti-universe within our spacetime then I apologize and could you provide a link to your source? As it would pretty much kill my theory.

 

I don't really understand what you are saying here. You do realise that we have not only observed antimatter but that it is produced and used on a routine basis?

 

 

I'm only suggesting that my theory, even before making any new predictions that can be tested is better than the current best theory that we have, though it doesn't have any data that validates it either.

 

How can an idea which has no support (and is therefore not a theory) be better than the current accepted theory which has mountains of support. That makes no sense.

 

 

I used the term angular momentum of gravity since warped space seemed to have more relevancy to gravities relationship to an objects angular momentum and seemed to have less to do with its linear momentum.

 

I'm not aware that GR has any particular relationship to angular momentum. Can you provide a reference to what you are talking about?

 

 

In fact, it was a very close call as bad whether and war had prevented validation from the previous two solar eclipses and the only evidence collected so far were some poor photographs that seemed to deny Relativity. Were it not for a last minute parting of the clouds, then relativity would probably have been just another theory that had been overlooked by all accounts.

 

Not really. The thousands of other experiments that confirm relativity would have still been done. Perhaps with even more urgency. In fact, that original observation is probably so full of errors that is can't be used to confirm GR. It is really only of historical interest.

 

 

An anti-universe that had things like white holes in it wouldn't fit very well with my differential universe theory.

 

Where do white holes come into it?

 

By using a symmetrical model which expands on either side of the Big Bang, there's no need to hit infinite density. Instead it would begin at some point introducing matter/antimatter within their respective domains using inflation.

 

 

"At some point introducing matter/antimatter" sounds pretty much like the standard big bang model.

 

Without a solid theoretical reason to avoid the singularity, you can't just hand-wave it away. (There are a number of theories that avoid the singularity. They do this using science, though, so they don't have much in common with your speculation.)

I'm not aware that GR has any particular relationship to angular momentum. Can you provide a reference to what you are talking about?

 

The Lense-Thirring effect, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession