Where is all the Anti-Matter?

I'm going to condense this severely, because of my own time constraints and obligations. And of course what follows are my own opinions and theories.

It amazes me how most people fail to consider ramifications that are to me the obvious. All matters (pun intended) of this nature I consider first in a metaphysical context. And before you begin to roll your eyes, just bracket what you may believe and consider. I am a Christain, and I believe in God. I don't just believe in God, I know for a fact that he exists.

The problem with most non-believers is that they have a problem considering the possibility of the existence of a God, therefore theories never take that possibility into account, and vice-versa. But then there are those, like myself, who are in the middle. I have no problem applying physics to religion, or religion to physics. Even if you are not a believer, you are doing yourself a huge injustice not to at least use the metaphysical as a possible unknown, a variable. Having said all of that...

If there is a God, and knowing that there is matter and anti-matter, let's reduce this equation as far as we can, to gain a bird's eye view of things. Which do you think would represent the Almighty? God would be represented by all of the matter in the world. Satan would of course be the anti-matter. The two biggest forces in the world are the Christ and the anti-christ. Does that not sound like what you are discussing? Matter and anti-matter?

Let's continue with this gedanken (mind experiment) as if it has merit. If the house that I am building stands to this point then we have to consider what is actually contained within the bible. In the beginning all was fine. Then man sinned and Satan, who was the most beautiful angel, became vain. At the point that man (Adam) disobeyed God is when sin was released into the world. At this point is when anti-matter was created, and God removed antimatter, the anti-christ, when he banished him to hell. If in fact there are two realms, certainly God's creation is what matters (positive) and hell is the opposite (anti-matter).

Until we consider God as a variable, ultimate answers will always elude us.

cthia wrote:If there is a God, and knowing that there is matter and anti-matter, let's reduce this equation as far as we can, to gain a bird's eye view of things. Which do you think would represent the Almighty? God would be represented by all of the matter in the world. Satan would of course be the anti-matter. The two biggest forces in the world are the Christ and the anti-christ. Does that not sound like what you are discussing? Matter and anti-matter?

No. You are looking at the superficial similarities in terminology without actually understanding the meaning behind them.

Grashtel wrote:

cthia wrote:If there is a God, and knowing that there is matter and anti-matter, let's reduce this equation as far as we can, to gain a bird's eye view of things. Which do you think would represent the Almighty? God would be represented by all of the matter in the world. Satan would of course be the anti-matter. The two biggest forces in the world are the Christ and the anti-christ. Does that not sound like what you are discussing? Matter and anti-matter?

No. You are looking at the superficial similarities in terminology without actually understanding the meaning behind them.

Oh no. Not another disrespectful poster quickly making assumptions about someone he knows absolutely zero about.

'Oh ye, of little faith.'

Well, your type used to get under my collar. Intelligent conversation seems to escape you. But what can one do.

I can grant you one thing. I never should have gotten in this thread, because of those time constraints I listed above. And other reasons...

I have an advanced engineering degree and computer science. Physics was my minor. Engineering courses also require physics as a prerequisite. Also, the advanced chemistry courses delves quite deeply into particles. But alas, I could be bragging. Naaaa, just pointing out the error of your ways.

There used to be a saying when I was at Uni. 'Put your money where your mouth is'. Or 'put up or shut up.'

I'm applying those to myself. I have a theory dealing with 'The Schwarzschild radius.' Specifically t(sub 0) -> t(sub 7) with all of the main fun occuring between t(0) and t(1).

It has been submitted to CERN for publication. Met a few people when I toured CERN with my niece. She is absolutely smitten with CERN. At any rate we were told about CDS, and its publication routes. My preliminary paper has been accepted. It was simply a proposal, backed up with the necessary physics and mathematics. They have a few caveats tho. They do not wish to repeat pre-publications. If it has been published already elsewhere, why waste their time. Makes sense to me. Therefore, your claim that I do not understand matter and antimatter casts aspersions on very learned professionals at CERN. So perhaps you know better. I challenge you to submit your expertise to them, since you have so much faith in your abilities and none in noone else. When my work is published, I'll post it here.

I was simply expressing where I get my inspiration. I will not pre-publish anything here. I will say, that the immense power and heat generated by the Big Bang supercedes the inherent weak and strong particle forces.

Do I have to explain time again?

Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.

There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

Right now is a little while ago. Long ago was in the past. The future is a progressive possible past which has already happened just we don't let ourselves or realise it yet.

Lord Skimper wrote:Do I have to explain time again?

Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.

There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

Right now is a little while ago. Long ago was in the past. The future is a progressive possible past which has already happened just we don't let ourselves or realise it yet.

Just curious, does everyone share the same "now" simultaneously, or do we each have our own "now's" that may match up to others "back then's" or "soon's"?
And are we actually temporally focused? Are we completely in the "now", or do we have parts of our minds in both the past and the future (which would explain quite a few close shaves when I just knew something was wrong).

Time may be easy, but our interactions with it are veeeeeery complex.

Michael Everett wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:Do I have to explain time again?

Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.

There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

Right now is a little while ago. Long ago was in the past. The future is a progressive possible past which has already happened just we don't let ourselves or realise it yet.

Just curious, does everyone share the same "now" simultaneously, or do we each have our own "now's" that may match up to others "back then's" or "soon's"?
And are we actually temporally focused? Are we completely in the "now", or do we have parts of our minds in both the past and the future (which would explain quite a few close shaves when I just knew something was wrong).

Time may be easy, but our interactions with it are veeeeeery complex.

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that the Voyager probes have been travelling fast enough for long enough that they have actually detected measurable time dilation (if only a very small amount like a millionth of a second)

Michael Everett wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:Do I have to explain time again?

Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.

There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

Right now is a little while ago. Long ago was in the past. The future is a progressive possible past which has already happened just we don't let ourselves or realise it yet.

Just curious, does everyone share the same "now" simultaneously, or do we each have our own "now's" that may match up to others "back then's" or "soon's"?
And are we actually temporally focused? Are we completely in the "now", or do we have parts of our minds in both the past and the future (which would explain quite a few close shaves when I just knew something was wrong).

Time may be easy, but our interactions with it are veeeeeery complex.

Technically there is no " now", now was a few (micro) seconds ago. The time it takes for the image to hit your eyes and be interpreted. The time for the nerve ending to signal pain or pleasure. The time to think, now! Is now! By the time it happens now it has already happened. It is localised to you individually. Just like reading this right now, has happened to me awhile ago and for most everyone here at a different time. Now is then. It is a past event that has happened and a past event that will happen in the future. Much like a super nova. It happened a million years ago but we see it in 5 years. It is a past future event that will happen, has already happened and can't be changed. There is no future event that isn't a past event and there is no now as that also has already happened. Yet there is a future as there must be because the super nova will be seen in 5 years it is a future that already must exist even though there is no future.

The idea of future, now and past is all in our heads. There is no real difference between now, future and past. There is however something else called progression it is one way (at a time). It is relative and it is why things work. Linked to speed relations and is the time of space time. It is how things work and is never fixed except maybe where ever the big bang, if there was one, took place.

The big bang was a fixed point without anything no space no time no progression. No now no future no past. As you now know without a past you can't have a now nor a future. Without a progression there cannot be a past and space is the progression. Be it a bang an inflation or many bangs all strung together. Or the bang could be the progression that just started in a vast infinite universe. Linking the space to the progression creating the space time.

Just to throw a wrench into this there is a medium such as each of DW's books and everything similar. Even this note. The Honorverse is a possible future, string theory might say a definite future of an infinite futures and universes. It exists in time that is fixed, yet only exists in our minds. It only exists to be perceived. It isn't in the book or tablet or even in the words but rather in our minds. Yet not there. Your mind is not my mind yet works much thesame way. Yet totally different yet the same. The same Honor Harrington fixed in a time that doesn't exist that isn't in time or progression as it doesn't progress. It is fixed. It doesn't change if you spill grape juice in your lap. Or light the book on fire. It is fixed. It is a past event fixed in space time, yet Honor Harrington is not a past event is not perceivable nor real but is.

Gets confusing after this.

In electronic format an eBook is not a physical thing. It doesn't exist as a thing, technically nothing is a thing as on some scale it is all moving things that are very small and all moving about. You and an orange are not really a thing or things but rather forces interacting. You can eat an orange but really neither you nor the orange are solid things rather complex little things held in check by forces. Best not think about it too much.

So you see you don't exist there no such thing as time and while there is a progression creating a past and reality, there is no reality either. It is all just in our heads.

Unless of course I'm the solypsyst and all that there is is the limits I place upon my mind which is all there is as nothing is that other than that which is me. But I choose to assume it is not such for some reason now.

Michael Everett wrote: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 believe the prevailing theory is that the matter that remains today is the "imbalance" between the amount of matter and antimatter created during the notional "big bang" and then effectively annihilating at a 1:1 rate.
Simplified version at least.


You can´t GO into the past, that´s just a weird sideeffect of where maths and physics doesn´t work well together. Math has no problems with getting a negative result, physics commonly do.


Take note, that the statement "time is relative" is incorrect. The original and correct statement is ~"perception of time is relative".

A universe where time is actually relative doesn´t exist, because no universe CAN exist under that condition.

Why? Because matter can´t exist at several places at the same time any more than several pieces of matter cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
And if you remove the possibility of there being anything but the "same time", things don´t work any longer.

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

Why would the "big bang" be the start of time in the first place?
It´s the start of OBSERVED time as we know it, but claiming it didn´t exist before that is rather a questionable claim isn´t it?

There´s essentially no evidence for it beyond philsophy of the "if it wasn´t observed, did it still happen?" idiocy.

Don't confuse perceived time and progression. No one observed the big bang, except maybe God....

The progression started with the big bang, before the big bang there was nothing after it progression started. Before the big bang or even the big bang wasn't even a point. Not even the notion of zero. Nothing at all. Then everything that is ever to be started and it the space and progression were.

If the observation of time were the beginning something needs to observe the big bang. That thing would be either the big bang or prove it wrong. It isn't that if no one was there to see it it wasn't there, rather it is that nothing was there so no one could be there to see it. There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is only the inside of the big bang. We are inside there is no edge and no outside hence nothing can be outside to observe the big bang it has no outside. You might even say it is one dimensional. The inside only.