A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 11, 01:14 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...cles-line.html

Quote:
"Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy
explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of
the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that
they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to
expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror
image of each other. However that is not how it ends. The decay may
begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is
significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to
experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in
different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of
time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken
into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved."

My take:
Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational
field causes time to move in a specific direction. So how does that
explain all of the other galaxies in the universe? They are all rotating
too, and it looks like they are all oriented randomly from each other in
the 3-space dimensions. Why are they all made of matter too, rather than
antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many
antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated ones? Also what about
intergalactic space? Time must be all twisted up in the IGM due to
randomly-oriented galaxies' gravitational fields.

What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to align their rotation
with each other? So I think the author hasn't gone far enough, there
must be a specific frame-dragging happening in the universe as a whole.
It's occurring not in the 3 space dimensions but in the time dimension.
So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction,
due to the overwhelming frame-dragging of the whole universe. So the
whole universe must be rotating too!

Yousuf Khan
  #2  
Old July 14th 11, 04:15 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Jul 14, 5:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back
into line

snip link now broken
Quote:
"Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of
the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations.
Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will
retain exactly the same structure except that they will
be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to
expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an
exact mirror image of each other.


Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. Killing off the anti-neutrons
early, still leaves anti-protons that have an infinite half-life. So
he is expecting us to find only anti-hydorgen and anti-iron.

However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin
as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging
affect is significant enough to cause the different
structures in each particle to experience different levels
of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways.
However the overall variation of the different levels of
time dilation averages out when every particle in the
decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears
and parity is conserved."

My take:
Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's
gravitational field causes time to move in a specific
direction.


I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow", based on
whether a particle is anti or normal. Not direction. We have stored
anti-hydrogen for minutes, so he has no leg to stand on. No anomalous
decay noted while contained.

So how does that explain all of the other galaxies
in the universe?


Similar mechanism.

They are all rotating too, and it looks like they are all
oriented randomly from each other in the 3-space
dimensions.


What about stellar clusters? Little rotation there.

Why are they all made of matter too, rather than
antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many
antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated
ones? Also what about intergalactic space? Time
must be all twisted up in the IGM due to randomly-
oriented galaxies' gravitational fields.


"publish or perish".

What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to
align their rotation with each other? So I think the
author hasn't gone far enough, there must be a
specific frame-dragging happening in the universe
as a whole. It's occurring not in the 3 space
dimensions but in the time dimension.


It happens to the *set*, as defined.

So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in
the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame-
dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe
must be rotating too!


No. Doesn't follow.

David A. Smith
  #3  
Old July 14th 11, 07:15 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

On 14/07/2011 11:15 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Jul 14, 5:14 am, Yousuf wrote:
Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back
into line

snip link now broken
Quote:
"Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of
the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations.
Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will
retain exactly the same structure except that they will
be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to
expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an
exact mirror image of each other.


Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. Killing off the anti-neutrons
early, still leaves anti-protons that have an infinite half-life. So
he is expecting us to find only anti-hydorgen and anti-iron.


Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely stable in this
universe, they don't decay, and neither do neutrons when locked into a
nucleus. This should also be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not
these common particles that he's talking about. I think he's talking
about particles that decay down to electrons, neutrons, and protons. I
don't think we've seen any high-level particles decay into these common
particles, other than gamma-ray photons, but that doesn't mean that
there isn't an extremely short-lived higher stage particle that we just
haven't seen yet. A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with
exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but instead of being
made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3 quarks. 3 quarks would produce the
common nucleons.

So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and produce matter
or antimatter, but due to the conditions in this universe (which
according the authors of this study is the rotation of our galaxy), more
of them produce matter.

However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin
as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging
affect is significant enough to cause the different
structures in each particle to experience different levels
of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways.
However the overall variation of the different levels of
time dilation averages out when every particle in the
decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears
and parity is conserved."

My take:
Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's
gravitational field causes time to move in a specific
direction.


I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow", based on
whether a particle is anti or normal. Not direction. We have stored
anti-hydrogen for minutes, so he has no leg to stand on. No anomalous
decay noted while contained.


I've often thought about time being the key factor in determining the
balance of matter and antimatter too, but I don't think it can be linked
to our galaxy's rotation. I think it's entirely linked to the initial
rotation of the universe as a whole. All a galaxy can do is slow down
the flow of time through time dilation.

So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in
the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame-
dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe
must be rotating too!


No. Doesn't follow.


Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the universe's time
direction.

Yousuf Khan
  #4  
Old July 14th 11, 08:54 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
7[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ing-particles-

line.html

Quote:
"Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy
explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of
the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that
they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to
expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror
image of each other. However that is not how it ends. The decay may
begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is
significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to
experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in
different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of
time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken
into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved."

My take:
Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational
field causes time to move in a specific direction. So how does that
explain all of the other galaxies in the universe? They are all rotating
too, and it looks like they are all oriented randomly from each other in
the 3-space dimensions. Why are they all made of matter too, rather than
antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many
antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated ones? Also what about
intergalactic space? Time must be all twisted up in the IGM due to
randomly-oriented galaxies' gravitational fields.

What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to align their rotation
with each other? So I think the author hasn't gone far enough, there
must be a specific frame-dragging happening in the universe as a whole.
It's occurring not in the 3 space dimensions but in the time dimension.
So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction,
due to the overwhelming frame-dragging of the whole universe. So the
whole universe must be rotating too!

Yousuf Khan



My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture.
In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the
universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the
universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats
exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe.
Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts.
They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally
believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and
tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense
form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects
in the universe).

When a fireworks explode, the bulk of the sparkle is on the outside,
i.e. the expanding shell is where the bulk of all matter resides
in ANY explosion. So we talk about missing mass - when they haven't
looked at the edges of the universe. The edges are now
beginning to imaged and is found to be full of black holes.

If all the matter is at the edge, it is possible that if anti-matter behaved
differently it is just conceivable that antimatter has also moved to the
edge of the universe leaving normal matter in the middle.
Its just something that happened - either anti-matter could have flown
to edge or normal matter, but one of them had to do it to make
the universe stable.


  #5  
Old July 14th 11, 08:58 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Jul 14, 11:15*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/07/2011 11:15 AM, dlzc wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:14 am, Yousuf *wrote:

....
Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back
into line

snip link now broken
Quote:
"Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of
the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations.
Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will
retain exactly the same structure except that they will
be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to
expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an
exact mirror image of each other.


Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. *Killing off the
anti-neutrons early, still leaves anti-protons that have
an infinite half-life. *So he is expecting us to find only
anti-hydorgen and anti-iron.


Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely
stable in this universe, they don't decay, and neither do
neutrons when locked into a nucleus. This should also
be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not these
common particles that he's talking about.


It has to be these particles. This is where the break first occurs.
There aren't enough antimatter versions of p-n-e *here*, no evidence
of enough of them elsewhere in this Universe, and no mechanism we know
of that would leave only normal matter, here.

I think he's talking about particles that decay down to
electrons, neutrons, and protons. I don't think we've
seen any high-level particles decay into these common
particles, other than gamma-ray photons,


Muons, kaons, stuff like that do.

but that doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely
short-lived higher stage particle that we just
haven't seen yet.


They are called "nucleii"...

A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with
exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but
instead of being made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3
quarks.


So are neutrons and protons.

3 quarks would produce the common nucleons.

So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and
produce matter or antimatter, but due to the conditions
in this universe (which according the authors of this
study is the rotation of our galaxy), more of them produce
matter.


Our galaxy did not exist when the break first occurred.

However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin
as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging
affect is significant enough to cause the different
structures in each particle to experience different levels
of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways.
However the overall variation of the different levels of
time dilation averages out when every particle in the
decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears
and parity is conserved."


My take:
Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's
gravitational field causes time to move in a specific
direction.


I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow",
based on whether a particle is anti or normal. *Not
direction. *We have stored anti-hydrogen for minutes,
so he has no leg to stand on. *No anomalous decay
noted while contained.


I've often thought about time being the key factor in
determining the balance of matter and antimatter too,
but I don't think it can be linked to our galaxy's rotation.


Agreed.

I think it's entirely linked to the initial rotation of the
universe as a whole.


Mach would predict that a bucket sitting stationary would form up a
parabolic surface, were that the case.

All a galaxy can do is slow down the flow of time
through time dilation.

So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in
the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame-
dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe
must be rotating too!


No. *Doesn't follow.


Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the
universe's time direction.


Which is one-dimensional, and cannot support "spin".

David A. Smith
  #6  
Old July 15th 11, 09:52 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

On 14/07/2011 3:58 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Jul 14, 11:15 am, Yousuf wrote:
Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely
stable in this universe, they don't decay, and neither do
neutrons when locked into a nucleus. This should also
be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not these
common particles that he's talking about.


It has to be these particles. This is where the break first occurs.
There aren't enough antimatter versions of p-n-e *here*, no evidence
of enough of them elsewhere in this Universe, and no mechanism we know
of that would leave only normal matter, here.

I think he's talking about particles that decay down to
electrons, neutrons, and protons. I don't think we've
seen any high-level particles decay into these common
particles, other than gamma-ray photons,


Muons, kaons, stuff like that do.


Yeah, similar to a kaon, but more complex. A muon decays into an
electron, so we already know of that mechanism. Now we need a particle
that decays into a neutron or proton, complete with their 3 quarks. A
particle such as this would be massive, and would likely decay extremely
quickly. Maybe it decays so quickly that we don't even detect it in
particle detectors because it's already decayed before it reaches the
first level detector? Let's say something that's already decayed within
a few Planck Lengths of its creation.

I don't know how sensitive these detectors are, but I'm sure events
happening and finishing within a few Planck Lengths are too small for
them to detect.

but that doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely
short-lived higher stage particle that we just
haven't seen yet.


They are called "nucleii"...


Well no, I'm thinking something like a kaon, which is made of two quarks
(a strange quark or antiquark, plus an up/down quark/antiquark). I'm
thinking maybe something made of a Top or Bottom quark, and two other
quarks. The Top or Bottom would decay down to Up/Down quarks while still
in the nucleus.

A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with
exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but
instead of being made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3
quarks.


So are neutrons and protons.


That's the point. Something that starts out as a triplet of quarks
already, could just decay down to neutrons and protons. That's because
neutrons and protons are also triplets of quarks.

3 quarks would produce the common nucleons.

So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and
produce matter or antimatter, but due to the conditions
in this universe (which according the authors of this
study is the rotation of our galaxy), more of them produce
matter.


Our galaxy did not exist when the break first occurred.


Exactly, it existed soon afterwards, but not at the Big Bang. So
something else must've been spinning to create the imbalance. My feeling
is that it was the Universe itself. Not just any old galaxy inside it.
The galaxies have retained the spin direction of the original universal
spin.

I've often thought about time being the key factor in
determining the balance of matter and antimatter too,
but I don't think it can be linked to our galaxy's rotation.


Agreed.


The galactic spin is just a reflection of the original universal spin.
In other words, the galaxy's spin is just an effect, not a cause.

I think it's entirely linked to the initial rotation of the
universe as a whole.


Mach would predict that a bucket sitting stationary would form up a
parabolic surface, were that the case.


Too slow for that to happen. Even the Earth's spin is too slow for that
to happen.

Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the
universe's time direction.


Which is one-dimensional, and cannot support "spin".


They wouldn't be spinning in the time direction, they'd be spinning
"perpendicular" to the time direction. That means that all three other
directions could be involved in the "spin"

Yousuf Khan
  #7  
Old July 15th 11, 10:00 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

On 14/07/2011 3:54 PM, 7 wrote:
My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture.
In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the
universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the
universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats
exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe.
Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts.
They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally
believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and
tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense
form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects
in the universe).


We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative
explanation. Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't
travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas
which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of
the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole.

As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why
you think that way.

Yousuf Khan
  #8  
Old July 16th 11, 12:20 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
7[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 14/07/2011 3:54 PM, 7 wrote:
My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture.
In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the
universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the
universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats
exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe.
Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts.
They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally
believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and
tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense
form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects
in the universe).


We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative
explanation.


Yes there is a need, superilluminal objects are emitting debris
as they travel and no matter how the analysis is done, it no
longer makes sense when measuring distance between outgassing
of debris. They are traveling faster than c.
We don't understand why because of Einstein relation holding
back our understanding. My guess is that a black hole
has no speed limit because space and time gets distorted
and sucked into it so there is no reason for Einstein rules
to apply for a speeding black hole. A black hole
can travel as fast it wants to without violating Einstein
because the space and time around it does not exist for it
to violate it!!!


Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't
travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas
which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of
the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole.


If only. There are not enough structures around the black hole to drive
matter into them. The heat and radiation would blow it away. Today
we got large structures driving matter into black holes. Not in them
by gone days of early creation. Simple oversight like that
is fatal for this theory of quasars.



As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why
you think that way.

Yousuf Khan




  #9  
Old July 16th 11, 04:38 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?

On 16/07/2011 7:20 AM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative
explanation.


Yes there is a need, superilluminal objects are emitting debris
as they travel and no matter how the analysis is done, it no
longer makes sense when measuring distance between outgassing
of debris. They are traveling faster than c.


Not sure what problem you are seeing.

We don't understand why because of Einstein relation holding
back our understanding. My guess is that a black hole
has no speed limit because space and time gets distorted
and sucked into it so there is no reason for Einstein rules
to apply for a speeding black hole. A black hole
can travel as fast it wants to without violating Einstein
because the space and time around it does not exist for it
to violate it!!!


If any of that happens, it happens inside the blackhole not outside.

Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't
travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas
which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of
the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole.


If only. There are not enough structures around the black hole to drive
matter into them. The heat and radiation would blow it away. Today
we got large structures driving matter into black holes. Not in them
by gone days of early creation. Simple oversight like that
is fatal for this theory of quasars.


In the early universe there was more gas available to fuel the
blackholes than now, since everything was much closer together.

As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why
you think that way.

Yousuf Khan


This statement still stands.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-Matter ,and Negative Matter are two Different Things O Ya herbert glazier Misc 27 March 11th 11 01:21 AM
Anti Gavity Anti Matter Anti universe Treb & Bert = bert Misc 5 July 25th 10 01:40 PM
Ooops Answering oc on matter and anti matter I forgot this. G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 19 February 15th 09 12:49 AM
Dark Matter responsible for lack of virgins on Earth G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 32 March 28th 07 07:12 AM
Dark Matter responsible for lack of virgins on Earth greysky Misc 94 February 22nd 07 06:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.