The Search For Antimatter

There was a recent theory that I read about which explains the mystery of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. Our side of the universe is matter while the other side is antimatter. Sorry but I thought of this years ago. See section 5k of "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017.

For about a century, scientists have been searching for "dark matter". Our understanding of gravity tells us that, at the rate our galaxy is spinning and considering it's visible mass, it should fly apart by centrifugal force. But yet clearly it doesn't.

So, as the reasoning goes, there must be some kind of "dark matter" in space that we cannot see but which manifests gravity. The trouble is that, despite the long search, scientists have not found the slightest trace of dark matter. Complicating things further is that, to influence gravity as it does, dark matter would have to have exactly the same distribution in space as ordinary matter.

My cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017, does away with the need for dark matter.

But what my theory does not do away with is the need for antimatter. In fact, going by everything that we can see about how the universe operates, it is required that there be equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

This means that, instead of dark matter, what we should be looking for instead is antimatter. However, virtually all of the matter that we can see is ordinary matter. 

There is nothing mysterious about antimatter. There are two electric charges, negative and positive. Antimatter is just matter with the electric charges reversed. In ordinary matter, electrons in atoms are negatively-charged and in orbitals around positively-charged protons in the nucleus of the atom. In antimatter, positions in atoms are positively-charged and in orbitals around negatively-charged anti-protons in the nucleus of the atom.

As far as I know, we could not tell if something was made of antimatter just by looking at it since both would handle light in the same way. Neither should there be any difference in mass between equivalent objects made of matter and antimatter.

Let's review a couple of simple and well-established principles in science.

First, the universe prefers an equality to an inequality because it involves less information. If there is an inequality of pressure, high pressure in one place and low pressure in another, the two will tend to resolve into an equality by flow from high pressure to low pressure. Electric charges usually balance out, which represents an equality. If an imbalance occurs, such as the result of updrafts in a storm that knock outer electrons out of atoms, a correction back to an equality will occur as a bolt of lightning.

Second, a form of this equality principle is Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions. For every action, movement of matter, there must be an equal and opposite reaction. This maintains the center of all matter in the universe.

One way that we see the Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions is in swimming. A swimmer moves forward by pushing water backward. Another way is in flight. A rocket or aircraft flies forward by opposite reaction to a propeller pushing air backward or the flow of hot exhaust gases backward.

Another way that we see equal and opposite reactions is in hot or warm objects. Heat is the kinetic energy of movement of atoms and molecules. So suppose that we have a warm object, such as a piece of metal, on a table. It's atoms are moving around. Just by random chance, what if more atoms happen to move, in a given moment, in one direction than in the opposite direction? The piece of metal would "jump around" at random on the table.

Yet this does not happen. The reason is that, when an atom in the metal moves in one direction, an equal mass must move in the opposite direction. The direction of movement of all atoms in the metal must balance out overall.

Now let's go back to matter and antimatter. If the universe definitely prefers an equality to an inequality, and opposites have to balance out, then there should be the same amounts of matter and antimatter.

The two electric charges have to be equal. For negative and positive charges to be somehow unequal, other than being opposite, they would have to be composed of something more elemental, and we cannot see that there can be anything more elemental. The two electric charges always behave if they are equal but opposite.

So when atoms form there should be no universal preference for either the negative charges to be on the outside, electrons or positions, or the positive charges to be on the inside, protons or anti-protons. According to the well-established equality principle, as described above, there should end up being an equal amount of both.

But yet just about all of the matter that we know is ordinary matter, not antimatter. 

How can we explain this when we can see no possible reason why more matter should form than antimatter? 

Remember my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017. In that theory matter in our universe originated with a two-dimensional sheet of space that formed within already-existing background space, but was not contiguous with it.

Space is composed of an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. The theory can explain the existence of the universe down to a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. 

One charge is an imbalance so the first charge had to induce two opposite charges, one on either side of it. Since there are two electric charges, there has to be two opposite directions in each dimension of space. But that still leaves an imbalance because now we have two charges to one. The mutual induction continues indefinitely because we always have an odd number of charges. The induction continues, in multiple dimensions, and that is what formed space.

Space cannot be "nothing", it has to be something. No wave can travel without a medium. We perceive electromagnetic waves as being electromagnetic because they move through space and disturb the usually perfect balance between the checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges that comprise space. 

Einstein's proven concept of "frame dragging", or the Lense Thirring Effect, that the rotation of the earth changes the position of a satellite by "dragging" the fabric of space around with it further shows that empty space must be "something". 

This process of mutual charge induction, which continues on to infinity to create a vast universe, started again and produced the two-dimensional sheet of space that formed within the already-existing background space, but was not contiguous with it. What I mean by not contiguous was that the checkerboard pattern of the alternating negative and positive charges was different from that of the background space. It was like superimposing one checkerboard on another, but with the squares not aligned.

This misalignment represented energy because it was an inequality. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and also to turn an inequality into an equality, because the two are the same thing.

The first step in bringing this incontiguous two-dimensional sheet of space to the lowest energy state was charge migration within it, positive charges to one side of the sheet and negative to the other, instead of the alternating checkerboard pattern of the charges.

But since it was not contiguous with the background space, the negative side of the sheet came into contact with the positive side. This brought about the massive matter-antimatter reaction that we perceive as the Big Bang.

One dimension of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated into energy, releasing electromagnetic waves that we can detect today. Some of the released energy went into binding the remaining dimension of the two-dimensional sheet into the one-dimensional strings that comprise the fundamental particles of matter, such as electrons. 

These strings were scattered by the Big Bang over four dimensions of the background space. We perceive these strings, and bundles of strings, as particles because we can only see in three of the four dimensions. The other we perceive as time, the spatial dimension in which the strings are primarily aligned.

Our past direction eventually leads to the site of the Big Bang. Time is our consciousnesses proceeding along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

In my cosmology theory charge migration also takes place in black holes, which are actually portions of the sheet coming back together. A black hole is an extreme concentration of matter by gravity, but it is also composed of electric charges. The universe much prefers to have opposite charges next to each other, rather than like charges which mutually repel. The pressure in a black hole is so intense that it causes charges to move so that opposite charges are next to each other.

But this is the same charge arrangement is that of empty space. That is why black holes give off radiation ( Hawking Radiation ), and ultimately decay. The released radiation is essentially that of a matter-antimatter reaction. The energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence in the matter comprising the black hole is gradually released as the collections of like charges comprising matter, which were held together against their mutual repulsion by the energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence, are broken apart by the charge migration.

So back to the question of where the missing antimatter is, if the amounts of matter and antimatter should be equal. We can be sure that the universe around us is composed only of matter because so much of the matter is in the form of gas and dust that comes into contact with stars and solar systems. Stars and galaxies collide. Objects like meteors are continuously crashing into stars and planets.

If any of this matter in our neighborhood of the universe was actually antimatter, we would see the extremely energetic matter-antimatter reactions that would result, and equal amounts of both would vanish. There is an equivalence of mass and energy, which is the basis of Einstein's famous formula E = MC squared. This energy in matter actually gives matter it's mass, and this is referred to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence.

A nuclear reaction also converts mass into energy. But a nuclear reaction only converts a small amount of mass into energy. The first nuclear explosions each converted about the mass of a paper clip into energy. But a matter-antimatter reaction converts all of the mass, if there is an equal amount of each, into energy. 

So we can be sure that we would see the results if any significant amount of antimatter was in our area of the universe. But if there has to be equal amounts of matter and antimatter, then where is the antimatter?

Remember that the universe prefers an equality to an inequality, meaning that there must be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Remember the charge migration in the two-dimensional sheet, negative to one side and positive to the other. Remember the principle that, for every action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction. 

There are equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But if the Big Bang threw matter across space in our direction then, according to the principle of equal and opposite reactions, it must have also thrown antimatter in the opposite direction. Electric charges must always balance out and equal numbers of positive and negative strings were thrown in each direction.

Electrons and their antimatter equivalent, positrons, are of equal charge but are much lighter in mass than protons or their antimatter equivalent, positrons. A proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron. So it makes sense that, when atoms form from the strings, the lighter particle will be in orbitals around the heavier.

When the charge migration took place in the two-dimensional sheet, the opposite sides were either positive or negative. Charges remained mixed across the middle, with one side of the middle being more positive and the other side of the middle being more negative.

The reason that protons and anti-protons are so much more massive than electrons or positrons, but have equal but opposite charge, is that the lighter particles are of concentrated charge, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy from the Big Bang, while the heavier particles, actually composed of quarks and antiquarks, are of mixed charge, but with either negative or positive predominating in an amount exactly equal to the charge on an electron or positron.

The reason that they must balance out exactly equally is that there must be an exactly equal number of negative and positive charges in the universe, because this equality is a lower information state than an inequality.

Neutrons came later. A neutron is actually a composite particle, formed by fusion when an electron is crunched into a proton to form a particle with no net electric charge. If left outside an atom, a neutron will decay into an electron and a proton, or a positron and an anti-proton, in an average of about 15 minutes. Atoms with atomic numbers above 20 must have more neutrons than protons to be stable. Since a neutron has no net electric charge, it is essentially it's own antiparticle.

The dimension of the two-dimensional sheet with concentrated positive charge on one side, which formed positrons, and negative charge on the other, which formed electrons, is the one that disintegrated in the Big Bang. This threw the remaining one-dimensional strings in opposite directions in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. 

The attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges caused the positrons and anti-protons to go in one direction, and electrons and protons to go in the other direction. After being drawn together by opposite charge attraction, they formed atoms of matter in one direction and antimatter in the other direction.

So all of the missing antimatter is on the other side of the universe, but not in a direction that we can see. If we could travel backward in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, and we passed the site of the Big Bang, we would enter the side of the universe that is essentially identical to ours, but is composed of antimatter.

Here is a link to the posting that I use to introduce the cosmology theory, without reading the entire theory:

https://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2019/05/in-cosmology-everything-just-fell-right.html 

Here is a link to the posting specifically about why my cosmology theory has no need of dark matter:

https://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2018/09/concluding-search-for-dark-matter.html