Where is all the Anti-Matter?

I was reading yesterday. The universe is full of matter, but when it was created both matter & anti-matter were created. I read where scientists are unsure what happened to the anti-matter. Why aren't we constantly seeing it bumping into matter and exploding all across the universe? Well the simple answer came to me. As we know the difference in matter & anti-matter is that the charges are opposite. we also know that space and time are basically the same. So, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. This is true in time as well as space, hence the "slowing down" effect gravity has on matter with regards to time (a force acting on it to slow it down). so a force must have acted on the matter of the universe at the moment of the big bang to propel it forward in time at its (presumably) current speed. The opposite force would have propelled the anti-matter in the opposite direction. Thus at the moment of the big bang the universe was filled with both matter and anti-matter the very next moment it was mostly matter (perhaps with a little anti-matter propelled in the wrong direction) and 1 moment "before" the big bang was an identical universe full of anti-matter propelled in the opposite direction in time. all of "our" anti-matter is still there, its just 27 billion years "that way" in the past, flying away from us, and since speed is relative, we are 27 billion years in the past and traveling backwards in time - from their prospective! Two Identical universes traveling away from each other in opposite directions threw the dimension of "time".

The Big Bang was when and where all the matter and anti-matter met/split.
They're going in different temporal directions now, us into the future and the anti-matter into the past on the other side of the Big Bang.

Or not.
It's just a theory...

I am no physicist and have no idea whether this makes sense in a mathematical way but it is a very cool idea and I like it.

MAD-4A wrote:I was reading yesterday. The universe is full of matter, but when it was created both matter & anti-matter were created. I read where scientists are unsure what happened to the anti-matter. Why aren't we constantly seeing it bumping into matter and exploding all across the universe? Well the simple answer came to me. As we know the difference in matter & anti-matter is that the charges are opposite. we also know that space and time are basically the same. So, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. This is true in time as well as space, hence the "slowing down" effect gravity has on matter with regards to time (a force acting on it to slow it down). so a force must have acted on the matter of the universe at the moment of the big bang to propel it forward in time at its (presumably) current speed. The opposite force would have propelled the anti-matter in the opposite direction. Thus at the moment of the big bang the universe was filled with both matter and anti-matter the very next moment it was mostly matter (perhaps with a little anti-matter propelled in the wrong direction) and 1 moment "before" the big bang was an identical universe full of anti-matter propelled in the opposite direction in time. all of "our" anti-matter is still there, its just 27 billion years "that way" in the past, flying away from us, and since speed is relative, we are 27 billion years in the past and traveling backwards in time - from their prospective! Two Identical universes traveling away from each other in opposite directions threw the dimension of "time".

So basically, the big bang isn't the start of time it's the zero point on a timeline?

Its elegant, that's for sure. I like the idea.

I've heard another idea, which hasn't been tested yet (due to a lack of experimental material) that Antimatter had an opposite gravitational charge as well. That would make it bond with antimatter just like matter bonds with matter, but matter and antimatter would repel each other gravitationally. So the answer became, every second galaxy!

Annachie wrote:So basically, the big bang isn't the start of time it's the zero point on a timeline?

basically.

Invictus wrote:Its elegant, that's for sure. I like the idea.

thank ya'll

Invictus wrote:I've heard another idea, which hasn't been tested yet (due to a lack of experimental material) that Antimatter had an opposite gravitational charge as well. That would make it bond with antimatter just like matter bonds with matter, but matter and antimatter would repel each other gravitationally. So the answer became, every second galaxy!

Trouble with that is “opposites attract” not repel, so it would be attracted to its oppositely charged counterpart. Also anti-matter is identical to matter except for its charge (spin) which means it has the same reaction to gravity not the opposite (though that hasn't been proven & is where the Idea of "anti-gravity" or "anti-gravitons" comes from). Though it hasn’t been proven, there is no evidence of "anti-bosons".

There's an old Larry Niven story (forget the name) where the main character (Beowulf Schaffer?) purchases information from the "outsiders" about the most interesting planet they have found. He almost lands, but discovers it's a planet made up of antimatter.

Maybe there ARE antimatter stars and planets out there?

MAD-4A wrote:

Annachie wrote:So basically, the big bang isn't the start of time it's the zero point on a timeline?

basically.

Invictus wrote:Its elegant, that's for sure. I like the idea.

thank ya'll

Invictus wrote:I've heard another idea, which hasn't been tested yet (due to a lack of experimental material) that Antimatter had an opposite gravitational charge as well. That would make it bond with antimatter just like matter bonds with matter, but matter and antimatter would repel each other gravitationally. So the answer became, every second galaxy!

Trouble with that is “opposites attract” not repel, so it would be attracted to its oppositely charged counterpart. Also anti-matter is identical to matter except for its charge (spin) which means it has the same reaction to gravity not the opposite (though that hasn't been proven & is where the Idea of "anti-gravity" or "anti-gravitons" comes from). Though it hasn’t been proven, there is no evidence of "anti-bosons".

Opposites attract with electromagnetism, but that doesn't carry over to Gravitation. Otherwise, how would things be attracted together in the first place?

Invictus wrote:Opposites attract with electromagnetism, but that doesn't carry over to Gravitation. Otherwise, how would things be attracted together in the first place?

Do you have evidence for gravity (or rather, gravitons) having a polarity outside of your head? Because that's kinda not happening in the standard model, and would be required for this idea to work.

Anyway, I would recommend that everyone reads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis, and gets started on an astrophysics degree so that we can settle this matter once and for all.

The E wrote:I would recommend that everyone reads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis, and gets started on an astrophysics degree so that we can settle this matter once and for all.

yes - the basis of this is that they can't explain why the universe is full of matter & not anti-matter (otherwise the 2 would intermix on a near constant basis - with objects of one drifting into fields of the other - statistically we should see lots of interaction threw out the universe) as they can't figure out why, someone came up with a (unproven) hypothesis of asymmetrical matter production. however this dose not fit the proven experiments which show both being created at the same time in the same amounts {keep in mind that the bosons used in the creation of this mater/anti-mater are already part of this universe and traveling with it threw time, therefore its production continues with it in time}. what we need to find out is: 1) is time 1 dimension with just a front/back or could it be 3 (as with space) allowing travel "sideways" & "up/down" in time - which as with space would be relative { if you travel in a car and drink a coke then go back the way you came the coke would not come back out into the cup.} 2) what causes/constitutes velocity & direction in time? & 3) what imparts that velocity? Then we can find out what effect this force (if any exists) would have on anti-matter & if it would cause it to be propelled in the opposite direction from a standstill (or - if 3 dimensional time) at an oblique angle from the original vector in time!)