Antimatter: The Unseen Half of the Universe
Antimatter is a form of matter identical to ordinary matter, except it is composed of antielectrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons. The standard model in physics indicates that half the universe should be antimatter. Physicists today are puzzled by the absence of antimatter.
Antimatter and regular matter can not coexist. They will destroy each other. If antimatter were nearby,
Let’s step back and imagine traveling to an antimatter region. Picture this: you have a spaceship equipped with a jump drive that can take you anywhere in the galaxy. You land in an antimatter system. Alarms blare as the solar wind and simple particles in the system interact with your ship’s hull, causing explosions, dissolution, and dissipation. You can’t stop it. Your ship begins to dissolve around you. This is what it would be like to encounter antimatter in deep space.
If you were on a solid surface, like a moon or planet, the antimatter would dissolve your matter form even faster. You would dissolve or explode almost instantly.
Given this context, why would anyone think antimatter would be found close to us? JOKE: “Oh, I have some in the back room. Let’s get some when we go to the store.” NO. Antimatter and matter destroy each other.
With this in mind, I make a bold statement: the standard model is correct. Half the universe is antimatter. Use actual evidence and experimental proof to disprove me.
Every experiment with antimatter shows that particles with no charge, like photons and neutrinos, are independent of whether they come from matter or antimatter. This means you cannot tell if a photon came from matter or antimatter. Light (photons) from an antimatter galaxy is the same as those from a regular matter universe.
I will boldly expand my statement: the galaxy Andromeda is antimatter. Send a ship. It’s 2.5 million light-years away (not close so we don’t interact). The ship you send will dissolve in the antimatter. If the ship returns, you will have proven me wrong.
The math of the standard model is established. I won’t change that. Instead, I’ll walk through a simulation of the early universe. Many may disagree because I don’t have a mathematical model to support my statements. If you disagree, create a real simulation and prove me wrong.
At the beginning, there is energy. As the universe cools and quantum particles form, we begin to see forces in the universe. Gravity is the first. Now, imagine a random particle is created (-x), an antimatter particle. Later, at another location, a particle is created (+x). Over time, these two particles meet and turn back into energy.
At some point, with random particle creation, we have a group of particles in a region: -x, +x, -x. They are close, and at the end of their interactions, there is a net -x in the region. One -x and one +x interact and destroy each other, leaving the region with one -x particle. This continues with random particle generation. Through this RANDOM particle generation, you will find an inclination, bias, or skew to generate a few more of one type of particle. Not because the generation is skewed, but because of the environment they experience if it is truly random.
Over a long period, the region will have a bias toward one type of particle. THE OTHERS ARE DESTROYED. If the early particle spawns were antimatter, the region would be antimatter.
The slight random bias in different regions is enough to create galaxies that are matter and separate galaxies that are antimatter. This is all based on random particle generation from the initial galactic energy. As the particles separate (is this part of early galactic formation due to the unexplained expansion of the fabric of the universe [See Blog 1]), they will continue the bias. Only particles of the same type will survive; the others will be destroyed.
Now we get to the heckler part of the program. There are observations of galaxies colliding and mixing without being destroyed. This aligns with my statement. They can be the same particles (matter or antimatter). OR they could be different. Has any researcher looked at the data to find where particles interacted versus avoided interactions? Galaxy collisions from the past are seen via telescopes today. Do any show annihilation interactions? Has anyone looked for them? Are there any interactions that show matter vs antimatter? If you don’t look for the evidence, you won’t find it. Right in front of your nose. The Universe is flat.
Answer this question: Is antimatter the top half, bottom half, east half, west half, or some other distribution in the first 10^-10 seconds of the universe? We don’t know how the universe is divided.
What I can say with personal conviction is the standard model of antimatter is NOT wrong. We simply don’t have evidence of how the universe is split between matter and antimatter.
Going forward, I won’t accept that there is no antimatter without evidence. The hubris of saying there is no antimatter is an example of the Universe is Flat (UIF). Instead, we need to say we don’t have enough evidence or data.
Now, a different view. I asked the Microsoft AI (Copilot) to create a program to simulate matter creation in the early universe. My request and the response are below. My assertion from what you can see below is the AI could not give me an effective response because it had no open-source solution to copy/reference/plagiarize. Today, AI does not create new science, technology, or ideas. AI today combine other humans ideas in different ways, or simply copy them.
A real simulation would be complicated. Random particle creation (matter or antimatter), random velocity, and interactions would be a complicated program. Over time, with real random creation, the universe will create regions with densities of matter OR antimatter. This is common sense that matter and antimatter won’t coexist in the same area.
Now I am conflicted about the next discussion. I think I will talk about Maxwell and the clear questions that simply get nods. Maxwell changed the view of physics. Most modern physics is based on his breakthrough work. He was way ahead of his time. However, he made assertions that later physicists should have questioned or pursued.
I will come back to this in another blog. Who peer-reviewed Newton’s works? Who peer-reviewed Maxwell’s work before it was accepted? Who peer-reviewed a postal clerk’s paper on physics before it was accepted in 1905 (Einstein)? Today, every idea, theory, and hypothesis must have a peer review to be considered valid. Translation: you have to get support and alignment from others (POLITICS) to get a positive peer review. This helps to keep the riff-raff out and keeps the universe flat.
My request to copilot:
I want a Python program to create a simulation of the early universe when matter started to be created with matter and antimatter. The parameters to include are time, density, random creation, random movement vectors and energy density. The output needs to be graphical with matter shown as green and antimatter shown as red. The timeline needs to start at time equal zero and continue to current time. The program can use a Postgres database to store data during the simulation.
Copilot
Certainly! Creating a simulation of the early universe with matter and antimatter involves several steps. Let’s break it down:
- Initialization:
- Define the initial conditions, such as the density of matter and antimatter.
- Set up the simulation grid (e.g., a 3D lattice) to represent space.
- Time Evolution:
- Use numerical methods (e.g., finite difference or particle-based approaches) to update the system over time.
- At each time step:
- Calculate the energy density based on matter and antimatter densities.
- Update the movement vectors (velocity) for particles.
- Randomly create new particles (matter and antimatter) based on some probability distribution.
- Visualization:
- Represent matter particles as green points and antimatter particles as red points.
- Use a graphical library (such as Matplotlib) to create visual output.
- Database Integration:
- If you want to store data during the simulation, connect to a PostgreSQL database.
- Save relevant information (e.g., particle positions, velocities, energy density) at regular intervals.
Below is a high-level Python outline for the simulation. You’ll need to fill in the details and implement the physics-based calculations:
Python
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import psycopg2 # For PostgreSQL integration
# Parameters
grid_size = 100 # Adjust as needed
time_steps = 1000
matter_density = 0.5 # Initial density of matter (0 to 1)
antimatter_density = 0.5 # Initial density of antimatter (0 to 1)
# Initialize particle positions randomly
matter_positions = np.random.rand(grid_size, grid_size, grid_size)
antimatter_positions = np.random.rand(grid_size, grid_size, grid_size)
# Initialize velocity vectors (random or zero initially)
# Main simulation loop
for t in range(time_steps):
# Calculate energy density
energy_density = matter_density + antimatter_density
# Update particle positions and velocities
# (implement your physics-based rules here)
# Store data in the database (optional)
# (connect to PostgreSQL and insert relevant data)
# Visualization
plt.scatter(matter_positions, color='green', label='Matter')
plt.scatter(antimatter_positions, color='red', label='Antimatter')
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('Y')
plt.title('Early Universe Simulation')
plt.legend()
plt.show()AI-generated code. Review and use carefully. More info on FAQ.
Remember to replace the placeholders with actual calculations and integrate the PostgreSQL database as needed. Good luck with your simulation!
Antimatter is a form of matter that is identical to ordinary matter except that it is composed of
