4 ms·

It’s simple. Antimatter goes the other direction in time. Just as you can go forwards and backwards in the X dimension. Matter can only go in one direction thr

It’s simple. Antimatter goes the other direction in time. Just as you can go forwards and backwards in the X dimension. Matter can only go in one direction through time, antimatter the other. So at the point of the Big Bang matter went on its direction through time saying buh-bye to antimatter that went in the opposite direction. Note: I didn’t say forward and backwards because from their perspective we are the ones who went in the opposite direction. This accounts for the lack of antimatter, the “missing mass” of the universe and why time travel (other than into the future for us) is impossible as the only way you could go in the opposite direction (the past) would be to convert yourself to antimatter which would be very very bad. This also doesn’t mean there is an antimatter earth somewhere out there (in the other time direction so we’d never know anyway) because at the point of the Big Bang an entire series of events / interactions would have occurred. There’s no interacting link between the two times (t+1 vs t-1) Figure out the maths for yourself…

mrkeen 4y ago
Physicists are able to produce small quantities of matter and antimatter, which then annihilate each other, releasing energy. It was a big deal when they were able to trap the antimatter so that it didn't do this. If the two particles travelled different directions in time, how would they meet?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Physicists are able to produce small quantities of matter and antimatter, which then annihilate each other, releasing energy. […] If the two particles travelled different directions in time, how would they meet? The anti-matter would travel backwards in time from the event we see as the “mutual annihilation” to the event we see as the “creation of paired particles”, while the matter would travel the other direction. Simple. When they don’t meet is a little trickier to explain, but its still the anti-particle coming back from somewhere in the future (possibly where it coincided with a different matter particule coming forward in time) and coinciding with the particle at the point we consider the “creation” point, and the same vice versa with the matter particle. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s how you explain them “meeting” in the “anti-matter goes back in time” framework.
- shagie 4y ago
  (I give absolutely no credence to the root of this comment tree...) There was an idea posed a bit ago known as the "one electron universe" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe ) > The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Feynman: > > I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!" > ... > Feynman was struck by Wheeler's insight that antiparticles could be represented by reversed world lines, and credits this to Wheeler, saying in his Nobel speech: > > I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from [Wheeler] as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole! > Feynman later proposed this interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time in his 1949 paper "The Theory of Positrons". ... --- PBS Space Time : The One-Electron Universe https://youtu.be/9dqtW9MslFk https://youtu.be/9dqtW9MslFk (highly recommended) The idea has mathematical utility, but not any practical.
  - tonymillion 4y ago
    My only difference to that is that the positrons and electrons went in opposite directions on the time axis from the initial big bang event. I love the idea of a single electron being the scan line of the universe (to make an analogy to CRTs) Assume you take the normal x,y,z we “know” from reality and separate them out into 3 distinct 1 dimensional lines. Add another 1d line for time. We can see you can’t simultaneously move both “forwards” and “backwards” on any of these lines. Postulate: for time, matter (from our point of view) can only move in a singular direction from t=0 onwards (we’ll call this positive), antimatter can only move in the opposite from t=0 (negative). And, unless there is momentum in any of the spatial dimensions the particles travel on the t axis at C. I.e v=C on the t axis for matter And v=-C for antimatter. Second Postulate: the cumulative velocity of all particles must equal the speed of light Any momentum in the spatial (x,y,z) dimensions subtracts from t: explains time dilation (as an adjunct) v(t) = C-(v(x)+v(y)+v(z)) (very very simplified for this) Finally matter / antimatter annihilation is the equivalent vv, as is the case for any direct impact of two masses of equal mass and velocity. Giving us e=m(cc), in a general sense without all the pesky gravitational warping of space and time. Btw: I’m not a particle physicist (can you tell) but I did have this thought while developing code for a physics engine in a simulation game I was briefly involved in, so far I’ve not invested heavily in all the mathematics, but since I’ve just retired I might actually do so.
- tonymillion 4y ago
  The matter particle already existed we annihilated it with an antiparticle, that released m(cc) energy from which 50% of it was released as energy (the matter part) and 50% created the anti-particle that came into existence when we created it. From out point of view it all makes sense: Create anti-particle Smash it into equivalent particle Energy released ??? Profit From the anti-patter point of view: Profit ??? Energy coalesced into antiparticle Particle unsmashes Particle stops existing. I’m mr meseeks look at me!

mrkeen 4y ago

Physicists are able to produce small quantities of matter and antimatter, which then annihilate each other, releasing energy. It was a big deal when they were able to trap the antimatter so that it didn't do this. If the two particles travelled different directions in time, how would they meet?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Physicists are able to produce small quantities of matter and antimatter, which then annihilate each other, releasing energy. […] If the two particles travelled different directions in time, how would they meet? The anti-matter would travel backwards in time from the event we see as the “mutual annihilation” to the event we see as the “creation of paired particles”, while the matter would travel the other direction. Simple. When they don’t meet is a little trickier to explain, but its still the anti-particle coming back from somewhere in the future (possibly where it coincided with a different matter particule coming forward in time) and coinciding with the particle at the point we consider the “creation” point, and the same vice versa with the matter particle. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s how you explain them “meeting” in the “anti-matter goes back in time” framework.
shagie 4y ago
(I give absolutely no credence to the root of this comment tree...) There was an idea posed a bit ago known as the "one electron universe" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe ) > The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Feynman: > > I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!" > ... > Feynman was struck by Wheeler's insight that antiparticles could be represented by reversed world lines, and credits this to Wheeler, saying in his Nobel speech: > > I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from [Wheeler] as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole! > Feynman later proposed this interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time in his 1949 paper "The Theory of Positrons". ... --- PBS Space Time : The One-Electron Universe https://youtu.be/9dqtW9MslFk https://youtu.be/9dqtW9MslFk (highly recommended) The idea has mathematical utility, but not any practical.
- tonymillion 4y ago
  My only difference to that is that the positrons and electrons went in opposite directions on the time axis from the initial big bang event. I love the idea of a single electron being the scan line of the universe (to make an analogy to CRTs) Assume you take the normal x,y,z we “know” from reality and separate them out into 3 distinct 1 dimensional lines. Add another 1d line for time. We can see you can’t simultaneously move both “forwards” and “backwards” on any of these lines. Postulate: for time, matter (from our point of view) can only move in a singular direction from t=0 onwards (we’ll call this positive), antimatter can only move in the opposite from t=0 (negative). And, unless there is momentum in any of the spatial dimensions the particles travel on the t axis at C. I.e v=C on the t axis for matter And v=-C for antimatter. Second Postulate: the cumulative velocity of all particles must equal the speed of light Any momentum in the spatial (x,y,z) dimensions subtracts from t: explains time dilation (as an adjunct) v(t) = C-(v(x)+v(y)+v(z)) (very very simplified for this) Finally matter / antimatter annihilation is the equivalent vv, as is the case for any direct impact of two masses of equal mass and velocity. Giving us e=m(cc), in a general sense without all the pesky gravitational warping of space and time. Btw: I’m not a particle physicist (can you tell) but I did have this thought while developing code for a physics engine in a simulation game I was briefly involved in, so far I’ve not invested heavily in all the mathematics, but since I’ve just retired I might actually do so.
tonymillion 4y ago
The matter particle already existed we annihilated it with an antiparticle, that released m(cc) energy from which 50% of it was released as energy (the matter part) and 50% created the anti-particle that came into existence when we created it. From out point of view it all makes sense: Create anti-particle Smash it into equivalent particle Energy released ??? Profit From the anti-patter point of view: Profit ??? Energy coalesced into antiparticle Particle unsmashes Particle stops existing. I’m mr meseeks look at me!