Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter intomatter?

I don't necessarily like this theory. It suggests that somehow the
reason why there's no antimatter in the universe is because it somehow
mysteriously got converted into matter. Not sure how that's supposed to
happen. The author is also suggesting that the universe cycles between
Big Bangs and Big Crunches (a lot of theories propose this), and that
after the next Big Bang, the universe reverses itself and then becomes
antimatter dominated rather than matter dominated. Why should it switch
at the next Crunch? Why couldn't it just get matter-dominated again? Not
a lot of answers that I can find in here. But it's an alternative
theory, and they deserve to be aired.

Yousuf Khan

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

Yousuf Khan wrote in
:

I don't necessarily like this theory.


Because its' complete bull****.

The invocation of the Schwinger mechanism...bull****.
Discussion of anti-matter black holes...bull****.

[...]

On 7/19/11 4:41 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I don't necessarily like this theory. It suggests that somehow the
reason why there's no antimatter in the universe is because it somehow
mysteriously got converted into matter. Not sure how that's supposed to
happen. The author is also suggesting that the universe cycles between
Big Bangs and Big Crunches (a lot of theories propose this), and that
after the next Big Bang, the universe reverses itself and then becomes
antimatter dominated rather than matter dominated. Why should it switch
at the next Crunch? Why couldn't it just get matter-dominated again? Not
a lot of answers that I can find in here. But it's an alternative
theory, and they deserve to be aired.

Yousuf Khan

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html



Your author states: "My answer may be wrong, but if it is correct it
would radically change theoretical physics, astrophysics and
cosmology.” Which is why this paper is likely wrong!

On Jul 20, 5:41*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I don't necessarily like this theory. It suggests that somehow the
reason why there's no antimatter in the universe is because it somehow
mysteriously got converted into matter. Not sure how that's supposed to
happen. The author is also suggesting that the universe cycles between
Big Bangs and Big Crunches (a lot of theories propose this), and that
after the next Big Bang, the universe reverses itself and then becomes
antimatter dominated rather than matter dominated. Why should it switch
at the next Crunch? Why couldn't it just get matter-dominated again? Not
a lot of answers that I can find in here. But it's an alternative
theory, and they deserve to be aired.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

I think of stuff like this sometimes, but always keep it to myself.
Why should I trouble the world with my guesses?

Dear Frisbieinstein:

On Jul 20, 12:50*am, Frisbieinstein wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:41*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

....
Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion
of antimatter into matter?
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

I think of stuff like this sometimes, but always keep
it to myself.

Well, no you don't, but you always have the good graces to *ask*,
rather than expound for hours about "how it is and must be".

Why should I trouble the world with my guesses?

Because you won't learn if you don't, and we might benefit in some
way? Wronski was a pretty evident kook, and we gained from him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3...e-Wro%C5%84ski

Then again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Sourced
.... the one about "Bozo".

I try and welcome anyone with a curious and open mind. If we are all
here for a reason, then it cannot be to see everything in exactly the
same way.

What if antimatter expresses higher friction in this Universe? Could
form primordial black holes more quickly.

What if a 90 degree rotation from our container Universe for infalling
matter, creates only normal matter (say from an exterior equivalent of
"spin", and charge is just the remanants of matter/antimatter "out
there")?

Either "mostly normal matter" formed up from energy (as we do not see
with pair creation), or some other mechanism generated / retained /
sorted-out the Universe we see today. We really don't know what
"energy" is, and maybe the initial Bang did not start with the energy
packets we know as "photons". Maybe photon + charge interaction can
only ever produce matter-antimatter pairs, and other energy carriers
or other interactions (whatever they might be) don't have that
limitation.

This particular paper might have a really bad premise, but perhpas
some new mathematical tool, or new way of approaching data / problem
may come from it.

You never really know where the road goes, if you never travel it. Of
course if it is strewn with bones, and you are not an archaeologist,
you might want to avoid that road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

David A. Smith

On 20/07/2011 3:50 AM, Frisbieinstein wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:41 am, Yousuf wrote:
I don't necessarily like this theory. It suggests that somehow the
reason why there's no antimatter in the universe is because it somehow
mysteriously got converted into matter. Not sure how that's supposed to
happen. The author is also suggesting that the universe cycles between
Big Bangs and Big Crunches (a lot of theories propose this), and that
after the next Big Bang, the universe reverses itself and then becomes
antimatter dominated rather than matter dominated. Why should it switch
at the next Crunch? Why couldn't it just get matter-dominated again? Not
a lot of answers that I can find in here. But it's an alternative
theory, and they deserve to be aired.

Yousuf Khan

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

I think of stuff like this sometimes, but always keep it to myself.
Why should I trouble the world with my guesses?

LOL, this theory does sound somewhat like the rantings of a thought
process that hasn't been completed yet.

Yousuf Khan

On Jul 20, 3:02*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 20/07/2011 3:50 AM, Frisbieinstein wrote:





On Jul 20, 5:41 am, Yousuf *wrote:
I don't necessarily like this theory. It suggests that somehow the
reason why there's no antimatter in the universe is because it somehow
mysteriously got converted into matter. Not sure how that's supposed to
happen. The author is also suggesting that the universe cycles between
Big Bangs and Big Crunches (a lot of theories propose this), and that
after the next Big Bang, the universe reverses itself and then becomes
antimatter dominated rather than matter dominated. Why should it switch
at the next Crunch? Why couldn't it just get matter-dominated again? Not
a lot of answers that I can find in here. But it's an alternative
theory, and they deserve to be aired.

* * * * *Yousuf Khan

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

I think of stuff like this sometimes, but always keep it to myself.
Why should I trouble the world with my guesses?

LOL, this theory does sound somewhat like the rantings of a thought
process that hasn't been completed yet.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

How empirically certain are we that antimatter has the same
gravitational polarity
than matter?

r.y

On 7/20/11 5:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ntimatter.html

Black holes seem to emit positrons. Not sure this helps.


Black holes don't emit anything, Brad.

Raymond Yohros wrote in
:

[...]


How empirically certain are we that antimatter has the same
gravitational polarity
than matter?

r.y


We aren't. Its' something that is important to test.

Dear Raymond Yohros:

On Jul 20, 2:13*pm, Raymond Yohros wrote:
....
How empirically certain are we that antimatter has
the same gravitational polarity than matter?

There have been a couple of posts by Tom Roberts (usually on
sci.physics.relativity) where he says there are serious plans in
testing this (even in his group), as we really want to know.

Problems had been that we did not have much antimatter (we are up to
hundreds or thousands of atoms / molecules), and could not retain it
for very long until recently (we are up to some arbitary number of
seconds).

I would expect some initial results in a couple of years (if not
sooner).

David A. Smith