A question for a physicist (or more hopefully)

[Jern_Sandyer]

I have a question for any physicists out there that dawned on me in the middle of physics class while I was off in my own world (Summer school is just so much fun). Tell me is my logic makes sense or if I just have an over active imagination.

The Facts

1. We have the most common and studied sub-atomic particles the Neutron, Proton and Electron. Each one is different in mass and charge; electron is negative, proton is positive and neutron is neutral. Each one of these has a corresponding anti-particle. Each anti-particle is identical to its corresponding in mass but differs in that they have opposing charges. This means that when they come within a close enough distance they are attracted to one another, when they come together they mutually annihilate each other because of the characteristics of what they are.

2. An electron's negative charge provides equilibrium to a proton's positive despite the mass difference.

3. At the moment of the creation of the universe there was no matter but energy only then after that was matter created. (correct me if my interpretation was incorrect with my previous statement). Matter was being created and being almost immediately annihilated but some how a small majority of common matter (if we were made out of anti-matter instead we would consider common matter Anti-matter so that is my name for it) was formed.

We have the facts now for my idea. If it has already been thought of shoot me for my stupidity but know for my ponderings.

Thesis:

A proton and a positron (the opposite of an electron) have are equal in their charge and have the same charge so would repulse each other. There could be no such unequal amount of common matter - antimatter ratio. They exist in different area of space because of concentration of antimatter and common matter in different sections of space. In the early universe the density of matter was extreme but in the few moments when you had a common particle and an anti-particle a different particle could make its way into the gap between the two. If they were charged then one would be attracted while the other repulsed. This would prevent a pair from mutual annihilation and with the likelihood of this happening over and over again many times you could get quite a number of these broken pairs.

The random change of clumping (which is quite likely) causes small gravitational centers to build upon form. The universe is infinite so there is so many chances for this to happen. The gravitational centers would attract more particles resulting in some clumps being annihilated (by the meeting of common-matter/anti-matter) but some would only collect only like matter. The universe is expanding so it becomes less likely that the matter would be come across its opposite...



That is as far as I've thought it out. It makes sense to me but does it fit with what we know about the universe.

Strange where my contemplations of infinity in a boring physics class took me. I need to stop contemplating the universe when I'm supposed to being to be doing Speed/Velocity/Acceleration/Force/ect calcuations.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jern_Sandyer I have a question for any physicists out there that dawned on me in the middle of physics class while I was off in my own world (Summer school is just so much fun). Tell me is my logic makes sense or if I just have an over active imagination. The Facts 1. We have the most common and studied sub-atomic particles the Neutron, Proton and Electron. Each one is different in mass and charge; electron is negative, proton is positive and neutron is neutral. Each one of these has a corresponding anti-particle. Each anti-particle is identical to its corresponding in mass but differs in that they have opposing charges. This means that when they come within a close enough distance they are attracted to one another, when they come together they mutually annihilate each other because of the characteristics of what they are. 2. An electron's negative charge provides equilibrium to a proton's positive despite the mass difference. 3. At the moment of the creation of the universe there was no matter but energy only then after that was matter created. (correct me if my interpretation was incorrect with my previous statement). Matter was being created and being almost immediately annihilated but some how a small majority of common matter (if we were made out of anti-matter instead we would consider common matter Anti-matter so that is my name for it) was formed. We have the facts now for my idea. If it has already been thought of shoot me for my stupidity but know for my ponderings. Thesis: A proton and a positron (the opposite of an electron) have are equal in their charge and have the same charge so would repulse each other. There could be no such unequal amount of common matter - antimatter ratio. They exist in different area of space because of concentration of antimatter and common matter in different sections of space. In the early universe the density of matter was extreme but in the few moments when you had a common particle and an anti-particle a different particle could make its way into the gap between the two. If they were charged then one would be attracted while the other repulsed. This would prevent a pair from mutual annihilation and with the likelihood of this happening over and over again many times you could get quite a number of these broken pairs. The random change of clumping (which is quite likely) causes small gravitational centers to build upon form. The universe is infinite so there is so many chances for this to happen. The gravitational centers would attract more particles resulting in some clumps being annihilated (by the meeting of common-matter/anti-matter) but some would only collect only like matter. The universe is expanding so it becomes less likely that the matter would be come across its opposite... That is as far as I've thought it out. It makes sense to me but does it fit with what we know about the universe. Strange where my contemplations of infinity in a boring physics class took me. I need to stop contemplating the universe when I'm supposed to being to be doing Speed/Velocity/Acceleration/Force/ect calcuations.

Good idea, of course I do not have an answer.

[Praxius]

One thing to put into the equation, is that within time, the universe will gradually counter it's expansion, it's own gravity as a whole will revert and when the universe reaches it's peak expansion, in theory, the universe will then begin to contract on itself, much like an elastic band..... some call this the Big Squish.

The Universe isn't infinite, but the space that contains the Universe is..... at least it is infinite to the point where we can not yet measure it by our own means.

To me, there are four major elements.... Space, the Universe, Time and the Unknown equation which created it all, which is beyond our space/universe and time.

Time was created as soon as our Universe was created in space and was set in motion. Once the Universe reaches its peak expansion, indeed, as you said, the matter in which you are speaking of will have more difficulty locating their opposites (More so in the outer riegons of the Universe then in the center)..... which then at that point, the Universe will of course pull in on itself, time would technically begin to revert backwards and count back down, in theory, in an equal amount of time as it used to expand.

By the time the entire Universe reaches back to the point where it will begin to "squish", the rate and speed of this compression should reach the same amount of speed and energy as what was there during the "Big Bang."

The Big squish's momentum and energy contained could in theory have enough force to create yet another big bang, and time would begin again.

For all we know, our Universe could have expanded and contracted on itself thousands of times before now.

Think of the Universe as a Super Ball..... throw it at the ground and watch the force you exerted in the ball, cause the ball to repell and move at a great distance from where it made contact with the ground. Eventually it's own weight and the weight of gravity stops the ball and gradually pulls the ball back.... the ball hits the ground and the force exerts the ball to bounce again.

^ The difference between the ball and the Universe, is that the ball has gravity working against it, therefore, over time, the ball looses it's own momentum and comes to a stop. In space, the only gravity that exists, is that of the Universe itself and the gravity from the matter within the Universe...... so in theory, there shouldn't be anything that would cause much interferance with the process.

[5010]

This is an unsolved mystery. Check out baryogenesis.