BB and Its Matter and Anti-matter.

Nature in creating matter creates anti-matter at the same instant.
However man has a theory that nature had more left over matter after
the BB than anti-matter(fudging thinking at best) If in the
beginning there had to be quarks and anti-quarks and they annihilated
each other 100% when they touched(yes) Still matter and energy has to be
conserved, This matter turned into energy did not leave the universe. My
theory comes in here to tell that this great energy went to give space a
great density of energy in the very start of the BB. The matter that
created our universe was the matter than never touched its evil twin(
anti-matter) because of Guth's great inflation theory. It is not
impossible that these instantaneous great annihilation explosions was
what created the great inflation. Let me add one more thought
blackholes appeared in these first few BB seconds,and blackholes have no
anti-blackholes. I fear electrons,and positrons given enough time
must meet and annihilate each other and produce photons. They
could be doing it as I type. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message...
...

Just to add to what I have brought to this post,here is a thought. "
What if" quarks have anti-quarks,and electrons have
anti-electrons(positrons) What a kicker it would be if hydrogen atoms
don't have anti-hydrogen atoms??/ Gravity's "BIG" building block to
create the universe is hydrogen,and we know it had plenty of that to
evolve a universe from the very beginning Bert

This leads me to thoughts of a "natural barrier" between matter
and antimatter. The antielectron (positron) has been shown to
exist, as well as the antiproton. These are brought into our
senses by our experiments with cosmic rays.

Perhaps these experiments are breaking through the natural
barrier and exposing the antimatter? On the other side of this
barrier there might exist antihydrogen, as well as antiatoms of
all naturally existing elements of matter on this side of the
barrier. Questions arising might include, "What is the nature of
this natural barrier?" and "What is the nature of the antielements
that exist on the other side of this barrier?"

Carrying this to its conclusions may include thoughts of...

...a Universe that is 90% antihydrogen, 9% antihelium, and
1% anti-everything else?
...anticarbon-based life?
...antigold earrings & cufflinks?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Tender hearts wear crying mask,
With eyes and tears that burn,
From their spot on Mars they ask,
"When will they ever learn?"

Paine Ellsworth

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Painius Your thoughts fit in nicely. I don't think man has created
an anti-hydrogen atom.


"50,000 atoms of anti-hydrogen made"
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-7.html

John Many thanks for that site. They have at Cern made those anti
hydrogen atoms. However they did not as yet smashed them together with
regular hydrogen atoms(yes?) If they don't annihilate each
other that as I've said would totally reverse our thinking. If they do
annihilate each other,and end up as gamma photons(like electron and
positron do) than we would have a clear theory that photons are the
building blocks of particles. Bert

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:59:50 -0400 (EDT),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Nature in creating matter creates anti-matter at the same instant.

A theory only, but stated as a fact? What is the point of so doing?

MIke





However man has a theory that nature had more left over matter after
the BB than anti-matter(fudging thinking at best) If in the
beginning there had to be quarks and anti-quarks and they annihilated
each other 100% when they touched(yes) Still matter and energy has to be
conserved, This matter turned into energy did not leave the universe. My
theory comes in here to tell that this great energy went to give space a
great density of energy in the very start of the BB. The matter that
created our universe was the matter than never touched its evil twin(
anti-matter) because of Guth's great inflation theory. It is not
impossible that these instantaneous great annihilation explosions was
what created the great inflation. Let me add one more thought
blackholes appeared in these first few BB seconds,and blackholes have no
anti-blackholes. I fear electrons,and positrons given enough time
must meet and annihilate each other and produce photons. They
could be doing it as I type. Bert

"Mike" wrote in message...
...

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Nature in creating matter creates anti-matter at the same instant.

A theory only, but stated as a fact? What is the point of so doing?

MIke

'Lo Mike --

Isn't there some very compelling empirical evidence for
this theory?

And isn't it true that when there is very compelling evidence
that most people accept the theory as "fact" until someone
can come along and refute it?

So one might ask what is the point of your challenge? Do
you have a compelling argument against the theory?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Kiss the girls and make them cry
Just like old Georgie Porgy--
In math base-2 brings Love to mind,
Base-10 brings up an Orgy!

Paine Ellsworth

Mike Sorry I missed your post. Its in every book,and when we create an
electron a positron is also created. It all comes from nature trying to
balance every thing to zero. Matter has its antimatter ,Plus
charges have their counter part negative charges ,magnetizim has north
and south poles,heat is hot and cold Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Mike Sorry I missed your post. Its in every book,and when we create an
electron a positron is also created. It all comes from nature trying to
balance every thing to zero. Matter has its antimatter ,Plus
charges have their counter part negative charges ,magnetizim has north
and south poles,heat is hot and cold Bert
Some might carp at your last statement "heat is hot and cold". Cold is
simply lack of heat, they are just two ways of describing the same
thing..aren't they? But...just maybe...a positron is an area of space that
is lacking an electron. I think that Richard Feymann was thinking along
similar lines with his concept of virtual particles. Stephen Hawking
suggested that, near a black hole event horizon, anti-particles would be
generated from nothingness when their quantum entangled virtual twins
disappear into the singularity. Hence black holes will radiate Hawking
radiation.

Please don't flame me folks...I'm not stating this stuff as fact, I'm just
throwing ideas around for fun.

Sally

Hi Sally Science is fun when we can throw are ideas around. I saved
that last point "hot and cold" because I had miss feeling bringing that
in. Did you have mixed feelings going against it? Like you say Sally
"cold is lack of heat" However using a great deal of energy we can't
bring cold to absolute zero. George Gamow using his brain took the
tremendous heat of the big bang that was created 15 billion years
ago,and came very close in his figuring as to the overall space
temperature 0f the universe as measured today. Sally could we say he was
good at how fast hot goes to cold? Photons do move from hot to cold.
Heat is a photon. Here on earth heat is a molecular
motion. Hot air mixing with cold air(motion) balances out,and we call
that room temperature.Leave cold beer out and it will warm to room
temperature.(heat going to cold) The universes space is a vacuum,and a
vacuum does not transmit heat. Space temperature is different.That is
why its temperature is measured in micro-waves. Micro-waves are photons.
Well I had mixed thoughts about slipping hot and cold in there,but what
the hell science is fun. Bert

"Sally" wrote in message...
...
. . .
...just maybe...a positron is an area of space that
is lacking an electron. I think that Richard Feymann was thinking along
similar lines with his concept of virtual particles. Stephen Hawking
suggested that, near a black hole event horizon, anti-particles would be
generated from nothingness when their quantum entangled virtual twins
disappear into the singularity. Hence black holes will radiate Hawking
radiation. . . .

Sally

'Lo Sally --

I've been studying this and would like to hear more about it...

I'm familiar with the electron/hole theory in electronics as it
applies to P and N semiconductor materials used in diodes
and transistors...

primary current carriers in N-type materials are electrons,
primary current carriers in P-type materials are holes.

.... but i can't quite marry your above statement about positrons
being areas of space (holes) that are lacking electrons with
the first discovery of the antielectron or positron in the cloud
chamber. That was actually a *particle* that had the exact
same mass as an electron, but moved in a curve that was just
the *opposite* direction that an electron would have moved in
the chamber's magnetic field.

So the question arises, how would an electron-less area of
space be able to leave the bubble track that is left by a positron
when it is created in a cloud chamber?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Our heads up in the sky,
We're so clueless of our worth...
Whose sky no longer shines
As we lose our Mother-Earth?

As people we must learn
About the care of planet parts,
To leave the world a better turn--
Empower brand new hearts!

Paine Ellsworth