Why is there any matter in the universe at all? New study sheds light

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Feb 28, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    With some, they are just too far gone!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I guess

    Also one of the biggest stupid groups, anti vaxers, are not going to stand in the anti stupid beam

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Derek.H. Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    .
    Such a blast to speculate !
    I suspect that near-future , we will nail down what the forms of matter-energy below quark are . Of course , that won't explain what space is , nor how it was created . It most certainly won't explain the multiverse , or how it generated the Big-Bang . Only massive hubris would lead us to ass/u/me that we had all of the answers in this matter .
    Addendum : One last thing : The more the universe expands , the less dense it gets . Lorentz Effects then dictate that time flows ever faster , in that future universe . This means that all of those endless nonillion years of darkness at the end , would pass by quickly , from our current perspective . To us , watching from here , the universe would age and die quickly .
    *Fascinating , eh Spock ?
    D.H.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Especially the Lorentz effects, of course.

    And the hubris.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Speculation is part and parcel of science, as long as people know when they are speculating.
    Quarks are fundamental particles that combine to form neutrons and protons. Conditions are such that Quarks are never seen in isolation, and that appears to have been the case at least back to t+10-35 seconds?
    Space is simply volume, or that which exists between you and me, and evolved at t+10-43 seconds along with time, and with time, form a four dimensional framework in which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of three spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant.
    Space is not necessarilly empty.
    The multiverse idea is speculation, and is not necessary for the generation of the BB.
    No one ever said we had all the answers, but scientists, mainly through the operation of particle colliders and such, are able to paint a reasonable picture at least back to t+10-43 seconds, when space and time evolved into what we recognise today as the observable universe.
    The passage of time is constant for all observers within their own frame of reference and passes at one second/second. Relativistic time dilation, along with length contraction, [two sides of the same coin] is what we observe in other frames, due to velocity and gravitational potential. The Lorentz effect has nothing to do with the passage of time or the fact that the universe/space/time is getting less dense due to expansion.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Some interesting and relevant papers.....

    http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Antimatter

    Quantum Effects in Antimatter
    The ALPHA collaboration at CERN has reported the first measurements of certain quantum effects in the energy structure of antihydrogen, the antimatter counterpart of hydrogen. [28]
    Researchers at the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Switzerland used laser spectroscopy to scrutinize the fine structure of antihydrogen, revealing with an uncertainty of a few percent that the tiny difference in energy of states — known as the Lamb shift — is the same as it is in normal hydrogen. [27]
    Researchers in Italy and Switzerland have performed the first ever double-slit-like experiment on antimatter using a Talbot-Lau interferometer and a positron beam. [26]

    Quantum Effects in Antimatter
    The ALPHA collaboration at CERN has reported the first measurements of certain quantum effects in the energy structure of antihydrogen, the antimatter counterpart of hydrogen. [28]
    Researchers at the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Switzerland used laser spectroscopy to scrutinize the fine structure of antihydrogen, revealing with an uncertainty of a few percent that the tiny difference in energy of states — known as the Lamb shift — is the same as it is in normal hydrogen. [27]
    Researchers in Italy and Switzerland have performed the first ever double-slit-like experiment on antimatter using a Talbot-Lau interferometer and a positron beam. [26]

    Matter Antimatter Symmetry
    3/8/2020:

    This paper proposes that when matter-antimatter pairs form from pure energy, with opposite (±) charges, they form in matter-neutrino pairs, with opposite (±) relativistic masses. This way, the (±) charges balance, the vacuum energy density is conserved, the (±) relativistic masses balance, and the (±) gravitational acceleration fields initially cancel each other out. Two such particles do not annihilate each other, because the neutrino particle escapes at faster than the speed of light.

    This proposal solves, (1) the “matter-antimatter asymmetry problem,” one of the biggest problems in physics, (2) the vacuum energy density out of nothing problem, (3) the creation of positive mass out of nothing problem, (4) the instantaneous creation of gravitational potential energy problem, (5) the infinite “Dirac sea” problem, and (6) the dark energy deficiency that causes the inward acceleration attributed to “dark matter.” All these things are simultaneously balanced, and all conserved quantities are conserved.
     
  10. Derek.H. Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
     
  11. Derek.H. Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    Opposite relativistic mass ?
    I await the many peer reviews and synopses sure to follow .
    D.H.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Perhaps you need to first learn the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

    The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: rest mass or invariant mass is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, the rest mass and relativistic mass are equivalent to the rest energy and total energy of the body, respectively. The term relativistic mass tends not to be used in particle and nuclear physics and is often avoided by writers on special relativity, in favor of using the body's total energy.[1] In contrast, rest mass is usually preferred over rest energy. The measurable inertia and gravitational attraction of a body in a given frame of reference is determined by its relativistic mass, not merely its rest mass. For example, light has zero rest mass but contributes to the inertia (and weight in a gravitational field) of any system containing it.

    For a discussion of mass in general relativity, see mass in general relativity. For a general discussion including mass in Newtonian mechanics, see the article on mass.
     
  14. Derek.H. Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    Kudos , Master-of-Physics .
    I git the basics , so I ask you...
    Does "Dark-Matter" have both forms ? Does space itself ?
    Food fer thought ... bruurp !
    D.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Far from being a master of physics or a student for that matter. Just learn knowledge from reputable sources.
    On the first, I dont know and I'm not sure anyone does since we have yet to physically detect the DM.
    Space? Space [spacetime] has not yet been quantised.
     
  16. Derek.H. Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    ...Dustin Hoffman !
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,072
    If no one knows for sure, can we add another possibility based on the proposition that the universe did not start as an "irreducible complexity". And as physical matter is a complex dynamic pattern of values, it must have emerged as a result of some other causality other than complex physical matter.

    Reference,

    DOE Explains...the Standard Model of Particle Physics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Standard Model includes the matter particles (quarks and leptons), the force carrying particles (bosons), and the Higgs boson.
    Standard Model of Particle Physics Facts
    https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsthe-standard-model-particle-physics

    Assuming that not all particles are necessarily physical in complexity.

    As an abstract proposition, what if;

    Matter emerged as a result of a differential equation between two or more non-physical value momenta, a dynamical event.
    Hence, "symmetry breaking" produces energy, energy produces mass.

    Perhaps "Differential equations" play a part in this scenario.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation

    I know this sounds simplistic and it is, but it cannot have started as a complex physical causality.

    Based on the fundamental tenet that there is no "irreducible complexity".
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2021
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    It did not.
    For one, differential equations cannot affect the real world.
    For two, the universe existed approximately 13.7 billion years before differential equations were invented, which was in the 17th century.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    This thread was resurrected for some reason. I can't see any reason to keep it open - not for another round of Write4U's pet theories, anyway.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page