Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reason for more matter than antimatter?

slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 5:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Exotic Atoms Hold Clues to Unsolved Physics Puzzle at the Dawn of the Universe

May 8, 2013 " An international team of physicists has found the first direct evidence of pear shaped nuclei in exotic atoms.

The findings could advance the search for a new fundamental force in nature that could explain why the Big Bang created more matter than antimatter -- a pivotal imbalance in the history of everything.
"If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created at the Big Bang, everything would have annihilated, and there would be no galaxies, stars, planets or people," said Tim Chupp, a University of Michigan professor of physics and biomedical engineering and co-author of a paper on the work published in the May 9 issue of Nature.

....................

Physicists have been searching for signs of a new force or interaction that might explain the matter-antimatter discrepancy. The evidence of its existence would be revealed by measuring how the axis of nuclei of the radioactive elements radon and radium line up with the spin.
The researchers confirmed that the cores of these atoms are shaped like pears, rather than the more typical spherical orange or elliptical watermelon profiles. The pear shape makes the effects of the new interaction much stronger and easier to detect.
"The pear shape is special," Chupp said. "It means the neutrons and protons, which compose the nucleus, are in slightly different places along an internal axis."

The pear-shaped nuclei are lopsided because positive protons are pushed away from the center of the nucleus by nuclear forces, which are fundamentally different from spherically symmetric forces like gravity.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 5:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Very interesting experiment. Has some profound implications to the structure of the universe, in terms of possibly being involved with why there ended up more matter than anti matter. Good for us.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.

Didn't Feynman introduce that idea just as a theoretical tool?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.

2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.

Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years. Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.

Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity. To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive. Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun. Electron and proton do not annihilate yet they have opposite charge and can spin oppositely. Matter and antimatter must have a more fundamental difference than electric and magnetic charge.

2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
Doesn't the concept of space time that arises from relativity suggest that time is much like a spatial dimension and therefore there is the possibility of travelling along it?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 4:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.

Much of physics WAS nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.
Corrected in bold & caps.

Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.
There's no need to understand an idea that is incorrect by definition.

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.
Anti-matter is not fully understood is it?
Depends what you mean by fully understood, even though NO ONE made that claim.

We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.
We know exactly how ant-matter works with gravity, as it has mass just like matter. What ever gave you that idea?

To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.
Not dismissive but rather informative.

Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.
1) I believe you need a question mark at the end there.
2) What do you think happens when opposite charges and opposite spins meet?

Electron and proton do not annihilate yet they have opposite charge and can spin oppositely.
That's because they are different particle types and thus have different methods of interaction (lepton vs fermion). BTW, a neutron decays into a proton + electron + anti-neutrino. Regardless, that's neither here nor there.

Matter and antimatter must have a more fundamental difference than electric and magnetic charge.
Not as as far as we know; ergo, I wouldn't say "must".

2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
Doesn't the concept of space time that arises from relativity suggest that time is much like a spatial dimension and therefore there is the possibility of travelling along it?
Spacetime fits that build and it's the space part that you are traveling along. Regardless, my definition of time does not contradict Relativity.

Cheers!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:44:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are also two other explanations used:

1. There There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter: "While theory predicts that the antimatter world is a perfect reflection of our own, experiments have already found suspicious scratches in the mirror. In 1998, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. That lead was followed up by experiments at accelerators in California and Japan, which in 2001 uncovered a similar, more pronounced asymmetry among heavier cousins of the kaons known as B mesons."[1]

2. Another universe; made of antimatter: "[That] somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars, anti-galaxies and maybe even anti-life. "It's not such a daft idea," says Close. When a hot magnet cools, he points out, individual atoms can force their neighbours to align with magnetic fields, creating domains of magnetism pointing in different directions. A similar thing could have happened as the universe cooled after the big bang. "You might initially have a little extra matter over here and a little extra antimatter somewhere else," he says. Those small differences could expand into large separate regions over time."[1] While the signature of high-energy gamma rays has not been found, there are regions in the universe we haven't explored yet, and regions that are too far away to see.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.newscientist.com...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.

Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.

But they were incorrect. For example, Aristole postulated that an arrow is propelled forward as each pocket of displaced air pushed forward on the arrow; this has been shown to be false. There are many other falsities of the Greek philosophers, a geocentric universe comes to mind. Newton was right, the Greeks (with the exception of Aristarchus), were wrong.
Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.


That's antimatter for you, and a direct argument against simple observation.
1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.

Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.

All models suggest that antimatter attracts to itself, and most models suggest that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter as well, although we don't have a definate answer on that - we should soon.
To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.

How?
Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.

It doesn't. For example, electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos. So antimatter and matter don't really destroy each other, but merely transition into another form: energy.
Electron and proton do not annihilate yet they have opposite charge and can spin oppositely.

That's because one, they are both made of matter (i.e. quarks instead of antiquarks; that is the fundumental difference), and they are two different particles (the electron is a lepton while the proton is a baryon).
Matter and antimatter must have a more fundamental difference than electric and magnetic charge.

They don't.
2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
Doesn't the concept of space time that arises from relativity suggest that time is much like a spatial dimension and therefore there is the possibility of travelling along it?

You don't travel in time, you travel in space. while space and time are corelated, you can't travel in time.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:07:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:44:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
There are also two other explanations used:

1. There There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter: "While theory predicts that the antimatter world is a perfect reflection of our own, experiments have already found suspicious scratches in the mirror. In 1998, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. That lead was followed up by experiments at accelerators in California and Japan, which in 2001 uncovered a similar, more pronounced asymmetry among heavier cousins of the kaons known as B mesons."[1]
These aren't explanations, they are observations. It doesn't really answer any questions it presents new ones.

2. Another universe; made of antimatter: "[That] somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars, anti-galaxies and maybe even anti-life. "It's not such a daft idea," says Close. When a hot magnet cools, he points out, individual atoms can force their neighbours to align with magnetic fields, creating domains of magnetism pointing in different directions. A similar thing could have happened as the universe cooled after the big bang. "You might initially have a little extra matter over here and a little extra antimatter somewhere else," he says. Those small differences could expand into large separate regions over time."[1] While the signature of high-energy gamma rays has not been found, there are regions in the universe we haven't explored yet, and regions that are too far away to see.
The Many World's Interpretation that allows for Universes within a Multiverse..all this with ZERO empirical evidence! A wonderful "little" theory that's made to fit ALL observations and predicts nothing. No thanks. I'll stick to good-old scientific observable facts!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:40:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:57:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.
Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.
But they were incorrect. For example, Aristole postulated that an arrow is propelled forward as each pocket of displaced air pushed forward on the arrow; this has been shown to be false. There are many other falsities of the Greek philosophers, a geocentric universe comes to mind. Newton was right, the Greeks (with the exception of Aristarchus), were wrong.
That's exactly his point. You totally missed that.

Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.
That's antimatter for you, and a direct argument against simple observation.
Non sequitur on his part followed by another on yours!

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.
Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.
All models suggest that antimatter attracts to itself, and most models suggest that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter as well, although we don't have a definate answer on that - we should soon.
We don't have a definite answer on that? Last I checked, our experiments with anti-matter (including anti-atoms) where not done in zero G, and all of the anti-matter reacted to gravity in the same way as all things with mass do.

To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.
How?
I agree.

Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.
It doesn't. For example, electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos.
That's not what he's saying. He's referring to "pair annihilation" and he is correct, where he goes wrong is when he says "only oppositely charged and spun" as if that fact was some unimportant difference between the two.

So antimatter and matter don't really destroy each other, but merely transition into another form: energy.
That's what "pair annihilation" means.

Electron and proton do not annihilate yet they have opposite charge and can spin oppositely.
That's because one, they are both made of matter (i.e. quarks instead of antiquarks; that is the fundumental difference), and they are two different particles (the electron is a lepton while the proton is a baryon).
Yep.

Matter and antimatter must have a more fundamental difference than electric and magnetic charge.
They don't.
Yep.

2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
Doesn't the concept of space time that arises from relativity suggest that time is much like a spatial dimension and therefore there is the possibility of travelling along it?
You don't travel in time, you travel in space. while space and time are corelated, you can't travel in time.
That's a Bingo!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:48:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:07:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:44:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
There are also two other explanations used:

1. There There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter: "While theory predicts that the antimatter world is a perfect reflection of our own, experiments have already found suspicious scratches in the mirror. In 1998, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. That lead was followed up by experiments at accelerators in California and Japan, which in 2001 uncovered a similar, more pronounced asymmetry among heavier cousins of the kaons known as B mesons."[1]
These aren't explanations, they are observations. It doesn't really answer any questions it presents new ones.


It's a potential solution to a problem. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more than into its antiparticle, some particles would be left, and that would be an explanation of the baryonic assymmetry.
2. Another universe; made of antimatter: "[That] somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars, anti-galaxies and maybe even anti-life. "It's not such a daft idea," says Close. When a hot magnet cools, he points out, individual atoms can force their neighbours to align with magnetic fields, creating domains of magnetism pointing in different directions. A similar thing could have happened as the universe cooled after the big bang. "You might initially have a little extra matter over here and a little extra antimatter somewhere else," he says. Those small differences could expand into large separate regions over time."[1] While the signature of high-energy gamma rays has not been found, there are regions in the universe we haven't explored yet, and regions that are too far away to see.
The Many World's Interpretation that allows for Universes within a Multiverse..all this with ZERO empirical evidence! A wonderful "little" theory that's made to fit ALL observations and predicts nothing. No thanks. I'll stick to good-old scientific observable facts!

So you only believe what you can see? The Multiverse theory is a very well tested theory, but unfortunately cannot be proven with "empirical evidence", and will likely not be for quite a while. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the old scientific thought, and has been discarded.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:40:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:57:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.
Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.
But they were incorrect. For example, Aristole postulated that an arrow is propelled forward as each pocket of displaced air pushed forward on the arrow; this has been shown to be false. There are many other falsities of the Greek philosophers, a geocentric universe comes to mind. Newton was right, the Greeks (with the exception of Aristarchus), were wrong.
That's exactly his point. You totally missed that.

Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.
That's antimatter for you, and a direct argument against simple observation.
Non sequitur on his part followed by another on yours!


I don't think so. Just because antimatter is not an easily understood idea does not make it wrong, and it isn't. It is an argument against simple observation because if we just used simple observation, antimatter wouldn't have been discovered.
1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.
Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.
All models suggest that antimatter attracts to itself, and most models suggest that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter as well, although we don't have a definate answer on that - we should soon.
We don't have a definite answer on that? Last I checked, our experiments with anti-matter (including anti-atoms) where not done in zero G, and all of the anti-matter reacted to gravity in the same way as all things with mass do.


No: http://www.universetoday.com.... While yes, it is unlikely that antimatter and matter repel gravitationally, it is a possibility, and we certainly don't have a definite answer on the subject.
To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.
How?
I agree.

Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.
It doesn't. For example, electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos.
That's not what he's saying. He's referring to "pair annihilation" and he is correct, where he goes wrong is when he says "only oppositely charged and spun" as if that fact was some unimportant difference between the two.


While yes, the particles do annihilate, it's not like nothing is left behind. Even in the case of matter and antimatter, the first law of thermodynamics can never be violated. And yes, he does downplay the importance of "oppositely charged and spun" when comparing the two types of particles.
So antimatter and matter don't really destroy each other, but merely transition into another form: energy.
That's what "pair annihilation" means.

Electron and proton do not annihilate yet they have opposite charge and can spin oppositely.
That's because one, they are both made of matter (i.e. quarks instead of antiquarks; that is the fundumental difference), and they are two different particles (the electron is a lepton while the proton is a baryon).
Yep.

Matter and antimatter must have a more fundamental difference than electric and magnetic charge.
They don't.
Yep.

2) Time isn't something you travel; time is change and a system either has change (time flowing forward) or it has no change (time stopped) as such there can never be "traveling backwards in time."
Doesn't the concept of space time that arises from relativity suggest that time is much like a spatial dimension and therefore there is the possibility of travelling along it?
You don't travel in time, you travel in space. while space and time are corelated, you can't travel in time.
That's a Bingo!
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.

I've heard that comment before, but it's the wrong word. Your thinking Tachyon.

If antimatter is actually Tachyon matter it might explain a few things, like what traveling backwards in time actually means. We'll know more when the experiment to determine if Antimatter is repulsed by gravity or not is completed.
http://alpha.web.cern.ch...

If they fall up then they probably fall backwards though time, but we don't actually know that yet.

Until then they are two different concepts that a few would like to have married.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:53:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 8:48:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:07:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:44:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
There are also two other explanations used:

1. There There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter: "While theory predicts that the antimatter world is a perfect reflection of our own, experiments have already found suspicious scratches in the mirror. In 1998, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. That lead was followed up by experiments at accelerators in California and Japan, which in 2001 uncovered a similar, more pronounced asymmetry among heavier cousins of the kaons known as B mesons."[1]
These aren't explanations, they are observations. It doesn't really answer any questions it presents new ones.
It's a potential solution to a problem. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more than into its antiparticle, some particles would be left, and that would be an explanation of the baryonic assymmetry.
That's observation of baryonic asymmetry, not an explanation. Not to mention that mesons are a small fraction of baryonic matter. I agree that there MIGHT be some asymmetry but this is still an unsolved problem in physics.

2. Another universe; made of antimatter: "[That] somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars, anti-galaxies and maybe even anti-life. "It's not such a daft idea," says Close. When a hot magnet cools, he points out, individual atoms can force their neighbours to align with magnetic fields, creating domains of magnetism pointing in different directions. A similar thing could have happened as the universe cooled after the big bang. "You might initially have a little extra matter over here and a little extra antimatter somewhere else," he says. Those small differences could expand into large separate regions over time."[1] While the signature of high-energy gamma rays has not been found, there are regions in the universe we haven't explored yet, and regions that are too far away to see.
The Many World's Interpretation that allows for Universes within a Multiverse..all this with ZERO empirical evidence! A wonderful "little" theory that's made to fit ALL observations and predicts nothing. No thanks. I'll stick to good-old scientific observable facts!
So you only believe what you can see?
Don't equivocate "scientific observable facts" with "seeing is believing". That's clearly NOT what I wrote.

The Multiverse theory is a very well tested theory, but unfortunately cannot be proven with "empirical evidence", and will likely not be for quite a while.
It is not a well tested theory as it cannot really be tested. It is a theory that describes everything and in doing so really predicts nothing; ergo, there is nothing to test.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the old scientific thought, and has been discarded.
Strawman. The Many Worlds Interpretation has no evidence to support it. It is speculation.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 8:57:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:40:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:57:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.
Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.
But they were incorrect. For example, Aristole postulated that an arrow is propelled forward as each pocket of displaced air pushed forward on the arrow; this has been shown to be false. There are many other falsities of the Greek philosophers, a geocentric universe comes to mind. Newton was right, the Greeks (with the exception of Aristarchus), were wrong.
That's exactly his point. You totally missed that.

Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.
That's antimatter for you, and a direct argument against simple observation.
Non sequitur on his part followed by another on yours!
I don't think so. Just because antimatter is not an easily understood idea does not make it wrong, and it isn't.
Whether or not "anti-matter easily understood idea" (your opinion) is irrelevant as to why he's wrong. He's wrong definitionally.

It is an argument against simple observation because if we just used simple observation, antimatter wouldn't have been discovered.
You continue your strawman but it doesn't help your case because anti-matter has been scientifically observed in countless experiments as far back as 1932.

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.
Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.
All models suggest that antimatter attracts to itself, and most models suggest that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter as well, although we don't have a definate answer on that - we should soon.
We don't have a definite answer on that? Last I checked, our experiments with anti-matter (including anti-atoms) where not done in zero G, and all of the anti-matter reacted to gravity in the same way as all things with mass do.
No: http://www.universetoday.com.... While yes, it is unlikely that antimatter and matter repel gravitationally, it is a possibility, and we certainly don't have a definite answer on the subject.
Again, as far as we know all MASS reacts the same to gravity and anti-matter has mass. Also, as the article says "While researchers weren't originally looking to learn more about gravity..." Ergo, it was more of a confirmation.

To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.
How?
I agree.
Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.
It doesn't. For example, electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos.
That's not what he's saying. He's referring to "pair annihilation" and he is correct, where he goes wrong is when he says "only oppositely charged and spun" as if that fact was some unimportant difference between the two.
While yes, the particles do annihilate, it's not like nothing is left behind.
Obviously, no one was suggesting otherwise.

Even in the case of matter and antimatter, the first law of thermodynamics can never be violated. And yes, he does downplay the importance of "oppositely charged and spun" when comparing the two types of particles.
I'm glad you realized that.

************************************
At 5/20/2013 3:21:12 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.

I've heard that comment before, but it's the wrong word. Your thinking Tachyon.
That's a purely mathematical particle with no physically existing analog.

If antimatter is actually Tachyon matter it might explain a few things, like what traveling backwards in time actually means.
Anti-matter is not a Tachyon; anti-matter is observably real form of "matter."

We'll know more when the experiment to determine if Antimatter is repulsed by gravity or not is completed.
http://alpha.web.cern.ch...
The experiment will only verify what we already know.

If they fall up then they probably fall backwards though time, but we don't actually know that yet.
Non sequitur: just because something might fall-up it does not follow that it will go back in time. We do actually know that things with mass (like matter and anti-matter) react the same way to gravity.

Until then they are two different concepts that a few would like to have married.
Yes, in comic books.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 7:51:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/17/2013 8:48:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:07:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:44:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
There are also two other explanations used:

1. There There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter: "While theory predicts that the antimatter world is a perfect reflection of our own, experiments have already found suspicious scratches in the mirror. In 1998, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. That lead was followed up by experiments at accelerators in California and Japan, which in 2001 uncovered a similar, more pronounced asymmetry among heavier cousins of the kaons known as B mesons."[1]
These aren't explanations, they are observations. It doesn't really answer any questions it presents new ones.
It's a potential solution to a problem. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more than into its antiparticle, some particles would be left, and that would be an explanation of the baryonic assymmetry.
That's observation of baryonic asymmetry, not an explanation. Not to mention that mesons are a small fraction of baryonic matter. I agree that there MIGHT be some asymmetry but this is still an unsolved problem in physics.


I didn't say this solves the problem. However, it is a very reasonable theory. Also, I wasn't saying mesons were the only particles around. I only mentioned them because mesons are particle/antiparticle pairs. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more, that would tip the balance of symmetry to matter's side, and antimatter would be all but destroyed.

Also, I recently found this explanation related to this here: http://www.exploratorium.edu...: Theories suggest that even if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created with the Big Bang, disparities in their physical properties -- such as decay rate or life span -- might favor a matter-filled world.
2. Another universe; made of antimatter: "[That] somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars, anti-galaxies and maybe even anti-life. "It's not such a daft idea," says Close. When a hot magnet cools, he points out, individual atoms can force their neighbours to align with magnetic fields, creating domains of magnetism pointing in different directions. A similar thing could have happened as the universe cooled after the big bang. "You might initially have a little extra matter over here and a little extra antimatter somewhere else," he says. Those small differences could expand into large separate regions over time."[1] While the signature of high-energy gamma rays has not been found, there are regions in the universe we haven't explored yet, and regions that are too far away to see.
The Many World's Interpretation that allows for Universes within a Multiverse..all this with ZERO empirical evidence! A wonderful "little" theory that's made to fit ALL observations and predicts nothing. No thanks. I'll stick to good-old scientific observable facts!
So you only believe what you can see?
Don't equivocate "scientific observable facts" with "seeing is believing". That's clearly NOT what I wrote.

The Multiverse theory is a very well tested theory, but unfortunately cannot be proven with "empirical evidence", and will likely not be for quite a while.
It is not a well tested theory as it cannot really be tested. It is a theory that describes everything and in doing so really predicts nothing; ergo, there is nothing to test.


And somehow an increasing number of scientists agree that Multiverse theory is real. They aren't just waking up one day and they become Multiverse theory believers.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the old scientific thought, and has been discarded.
Strawman. The Many Worlds Interpretation has no evidence to support it. It is speculation.

Yes it does have evidence, although yes, it is a speculation.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 7:57:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:37:07 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/17/2013 8:57:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:40:49 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:57:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:48:10 AM, chui wrote:
At 5/15/2013 1:03:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.
Utter nonsense.
Much of physics is nonsense in that, for example, Newton's laws of motion contradicted the logical conclusions of the great Greek philosophers whose views dominated for nearly 2000 years.
But they were incorrect. For example, Aristole postulated that an arrow is propelled forward as each pocket of displaced air pushed forward on the arrow; this has been shown to be false. There are many other falsities of the Greek philosophers, a geocentric universe comes to mind. Newton was right, the Greeks (with the exception of Aristarchus), were wrong.
That's exactly his point. You totally missed that.

Just because the human mind, the result of evolution guided by survivalist pressure, cannot easily understand an idea does not make it wrong without further evidence.
That's antimatter for you, and a direct argument against simple observation.
Non sequitur on his part followed by another on yours!
I don't think so. Just because antimatter is not an easily understood idea does not make it wrong, and it isn't.
Whether or not "anti-matter easily understood idea" (your opinion) is irrelevant as to why he's wrong. He's wrong definitionally.

It is an argument against simple observation because if we just used simple observation, antimatter wouldn't have been discovered.
You continue your strawman but it doesn't help your case because anti-matter has been scientifically observed in countless experiments as far back as 1932.

1) Antimatter is simple oppositely charged matter with different magnetic-moment. Example: an electron is negatively charged matter and a positron is positively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a proton is positively charged matter and an anti-proton is negatively charged anti-matter with opposing magnetic-moment; a neutron is electrically neutral matter and an anti-neutron is electrically neutral anti-matter and with opposing magnetic-moment; etc.
Anti-matter is not fully understood is it? We don't know for example how antimatter works with gravity.
All models suggest that antimatter attracts to itself, and most models suggest that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter as well, although we don't have a definate answer on that - we should soon.
We don't have a definite answer on that? Last I checked, our experiments with anti-matter (including anti-atoms) where not done in zero G, and all of the anti-matter reacted to gravity in the same way as all things with mass do.
No: http://www.universetoday.com.... While yes, it is unlikely that antimatter and matter repel gravitationally, it is a possibility, and we certainly don't have a definite answer on the subject.
Again, as far as we know all MASS reacts the same to gravity and anti-matter has mass. Also, as the article says "While researchers weren't originally looking to learn more about gravity..." Ergo, it was more of a confirmation.


You realize I agree with you, right? My point was that that gravitational force between matter and anti-matter has not been confirmed yet, and while it is likely that the two attract, there is the faintest possibility that they repel.
To say it is 'simply matter with opposite charge and spin' is somewhat dismissive.
How?
I agree.
Why does matter then annihilate with antimatter if it is only oppositely charged and spun.
It doesn't. For example, electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos.
That's not what he's saying. He's referring to "pair annihilation" and he is correct, where he goes wrong is when he says "only oppositely charged and spun" as if that fact was some unimportant difference between the two.
While yes, the particles do annihilate, it's not like nothing is left behind.
Obviously, no one was suggesting otherwise.

Even in the case of matter and antimatter, the first law of thermodynamics can never be violated. And yes, he does downplay the importance of "oppositely charged and spun" when comparing the two types of particles.
I'm glad you realized that.

************************************
At 5/20/2013 3:21:12 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/10/2013 7:06:22 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Antimatter is just matter traveling backwards in time.

I've heard that comment before, but it's the wrong word. Your thinking Tachyon.
That's a purely mathematical particle with no physically existing analog.

If antimatter is actually Tachyon matter it might explain a few things, like what traveling backwards in time actually means.
Anti-matter is not a Tachyon; anti-matter is observably real form of "matter."

We'll know more when the experiment to determine if Antimatter is repulsed by gravity or not is completed.
http://alpha.web.cern.ch...
The experiment will only verify what we already know.

If they fall up then they probably fall backwards though time, but we don't actually know that yet.
Non sequitur: just because something might fall-up it does not follow that it will go back in time. We do actually know that things with mass (like matter and anti-matter) react the same way to gravity.

Until then they are two different concepts that a few would like to have married.
Yes, in comic books.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 12:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 7:51:42 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
It's a potential solution to a problem. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more than into its antiparticle, some particles would be left, and that would be an explanation of the baryonic assymmetry.
That's observation of baryonic asymmetry, not an explanation. Not to mention that mesons are a small fraction of baryonic matter. I agree that there MIGHT be some asymmetry but this is still an unsolved problem in physics.
I didn't say this solves the problem.
Actually, you kinda did: "a potential solution."

However, it is a very reasonable theory. Also, I wasn't saying mesons were the only particles around. I only mentioned them because mesons are particle/antiparticle pairs. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more, that would tip the balance of symmetry to matter's side, and antimatter would be all but destroyed.
What I am saying is that meson decay asymmetry is no where near enough to account for the apparent lack of antimatter in the Universe.

Also, I recently found this explanation related to this here: http://www.exploratorium.edu...: Theories suggest that even if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created with the Big Bang, disparities in their physical properties -- such as decay rate or life span -- might favor a matter-filled world.
Maybe, but not certain. It remains one of the big unanswered questions.

So you only believe what you can see?
Don't equivocate "scientific observable facts" with "seeing is believing". That's clearly NOT what I wrote.
The Multiverse theory is a very well tested theory, but unfortunately cannot be proven with "empirical evidence", and will likely not be for quite a while.
It is not a well tested theory as it cannot really be tested. It is a theory that describes everything and in doing so really predicts nothing; ergo, there is nothing to test.
And somehow an increasing number of scientists agree that Multiverse theory is real.
Argumentum ad populum, not very convincing.

They aren't just waking up one day and they become Multiverse theory believers.
Whether they wake up one day or take 2, 3, etc, is irrelevant. The point is that it is a purely mathematical endeavor that has been created to fit observations AND not the other way around.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the old scientific thought, and has been discarded.
Strawman. The Many Worlds Interpretation has no evidence to support it. It is speculation.
Yes it does have evidence, although yes, it is a speculation.
When I said evidence I meant empirical evidence, but you're claiming "speculative evidence"...what's that?

At 5/22/2013 7:57:16 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/21/2013 12:37:07 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No: http://www.universetoday.com.... While yes, it is unlikely that antimatter and matter repel gravitationally, it is a possibility, and we certainly don't have a definite answer on the subject.
Again, as far as we know all MASS reacts the same to gravity and anti-matter has mass. Also, as the article says "While researchers weren't originally looking to learn more about gravity..." Ergo, it was more of a confirmation.
You realize I agree with you, right? My point was that that gravitational force between matter and anti-matter has not been confirmed yet, and while it is likely that the two attract, there is the faintest possibility that they repel.
Gravity is the distortion of spacetime created by mass, and since both particles and anti-particles have mass, why would we expect there to be anti-gravity? We wouldn't. Not to mention the fact that (theoretically) a graviton has no anti-particle...other than itself, of course.

I just don't like it when people start to take flights of fancy...I like to clip their wings!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 12:24:58 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/22/2013 7:51:42 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
It's a potential solution to a problem. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more than into its antiparticle, some particles would be left, and that would be an explanation of the baryonic assymmetry.
That's observation of baryonic asymmetry, not an explanation. Not to mention that mesons are a small fraction of baryonic matter. I agree that there MIGHT be some asymmetry but this is still an unsolved problem in physics.
I didn't say this solves the problem.
Actually, you kinda did: "a potential solution."


Yes, it's a "potential solution"; not a solution itself.
However, it is a very reasonable theory. Also, I wasn't saying mesons were the only particles around. I only mentioned them because mesons are particle/antiparticle pairs. If a group of mesons turned into its particle more, that would tip the balance of symmetry to matter's side, and antimatter would be all but destroyed.
What I am saying is that meson decay asymmetry is no where near enough to account for the apparent lack of antimatter in the Universe.


Ok. Say you have 100 mesons that result in 55 particles of matter, and 45 particles of antimatter. After annihilation, 10 particles of matter are left. If all else is equal, matter will dominate.
Also, I recently found this explanation related to this here: http://www.exploratorium.edu...: Theories suggest that even if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created with the Big Bang, disparities in their physical properties -- such as decay rate or life span -- might favor a matter-filled world.
Maybe, but not certain. It remains one of the big unanswered questions.


I agree. It's just a theory.
So you only believe what you can see?
Don't equivocate "scientific observable facts" with "seeing is believing". That's clearly NOT what I wrote.
The Multiverse theory is a very well tested theory, but unfortunately cannot be proven with "empirical evidence", and will likely not be for quite a while.
It is not a well tested theory as it cannot really be tested. It is a theory that describes everything and in doing so really predicts nothing; ergo, there is nothing to test.
And somehow an increasing number of scientists agree that Multiverse theory is real.
Argumentum ad populum, not very convincing.

They aren't just waking up one day and they become Multiverse theory believers.
Whether they wake up one day or take 2, 3, etc, is irrelevant. The point is that it is a purely mathematical endeavor that has been created to fit observations AND not the other way around.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the old scientific thought, and has been discarded.
Strawman. The Many Worlds Interpretation has no evidence to support it. It is speculation.
Yes it does have evidence, although yes, it is a speculation.
When I said evidence I meant empirical evidence, but you're claiming "speculative evidence"...what's that?


See my post below.
At 5/22/2013 7:57:16 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/21/2013 12:37:07 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No: http://www.universetoday.com.... While yes, it is unlikely that antimatter and matter repel gravitationally, it is a possibility, and we certainly don't have a definite answer on the subject.
Again, as far as we know all MASS reacts the same to gravity and anti-matter has mass. Also, as the article says "While researchers weren't originally looking to learn more about gravity..." Ergo, it was more of a confirmation.
You realize I agree with you, right? My point was that that gravitational force between matter and anti-matter has not been confirmed yet, and while it is likely that the two attract, there is the faintest possibility that they repel.
Gravity is the distortion of spacetime created by mass, and since both particles and anti-particles have mass, why would we expect there to be anti-gravity? We wouldn't. Not to mention the fact that (theoretically) a graviton has no anti-particle...other than itself, of course.

I just don't like it when people start to take flights of fancy...I like to clip their wings!

I'm waiting for CERN to confirm my speculation that matter is attracted to anti-matter before I come to any rash conclusions.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:09:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@tBoonePickens:

While the multiverse theory is not scientifically proven by any empirical means, there are several reasons and proofs that the universe we live in my be just one of millions... maybe even infinite.

Here is a great article on multiverse theory and why it may be true: http://www.space.com.... Strongly take to heart the first one.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:26:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting article. It would be interesting imagining a anti-matter universe and anti-matter life forms.
0x5f3759df
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:09:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
@tBoonePickens:

While the multiverse theory is not scientifically proven by any empirical means, there are several reasons and proofs that the universe we live in my be just one of millions... maybe even infinite.
I don't think so, especially if by infinite you mean "never ending". I prefer the understanding of "infinity" to be "complete" or "all". I think there is a large contrast between "complete" vs "never ending": the first is a rational concept while the latter is not as it never becomes anything in particular.

Here is a great article on multiverse theory and why it may be true: http://www.space.com.... Strongly take to heart the first one.
I honestly cannot find a difference between the 5...that's because there there isn't any! Regardless, the explanation in the first one I think is better worded. It says: "But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time." This assumes infinite spacetime but finite all-else (ie matter/energy etc.) Why? Because it fits the theory better. But you see, EVERYTHING is part of the same thing INCLUDING spacetime and so spacetime itself also has a limited number of arrangements or states.

Anyways, the way I see it is that the 5 are the same:

1) Infinite Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
2) Bubble Universes = Infinite Spacetime = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
3) Parallel Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
4) Daughter Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
5) Mathematical Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.

And let's not forget that theses are all built upon mathematical models. Regardless, I believe that the concept of infinity used in these theories is inherently flawed. As you know, infinity is defined axiomatically and requires a large number of exceptions (ie other axioms) in order to "fit" into mathematics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 10:02:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 5:33:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/22/2013 3:09:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
@tBoonePickens:

While the multiverse theory is not scientifically proven by any empirical means, there are several reasons and proofs that the universe we live in my be just one of millions... maybe even infinite.
I don't think so, especially if by infinite you mean "never ending". I prefer the understanding of "infinity" to be "complete" or "all". I think there is a large contrast between "complete" vs "never ending": the first is a rational concept while the latter is not as it never becomes anything in particular.


Infinity means never ending. For example, a googolplexian is 0% of infinity. An infinite universe does not end.
Here is a great article on multiverse theory and why it may be true: http://www.space.com.... Strongly take to heart the first one.
I honestly cannot find a difference between the 5...that's because there there isn't any! Regardless, the explanation in the first one I think is better worded. It says: "But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time." This assumes infinite spacetime but finite all-else (ie matter/energy etc.) Why? Because it fits the theory better. But you see, EVERYTHING is part of the same thing INCLUDING spacetime and so spacetime itself also has a limited number of arrangements or states.

Anyways, the way I see it is that the 5 are the same:

1) Infinite Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
2) Bubble Universes = Infinite Spacetime = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
3) Parallel Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
4) Daughter Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.
5) Mathematical Universes = More than 1 Universe = Many Worlds.

And let's not forget that theses are all built upon mathematical models. Regardless, I believe that the concept of infinity used in these theories is inherently flawed. As you know, infinity is defined axiomatically and requires a large number of exceptions (ie other axioms) in order to "fit" into mathematics.

You're simplifing the article to your own advantage. Even if you weren't there's still one premise unrefuted - that an infinite universe requires infinite universes as ours is finite. Infinity is a never ending number. It is a mathematical concept that can never be reached.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:29:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 10:02:45 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 5/22/2013 5:33:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/22/2013 3:09:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
@tBoonePickens:

While the multiverse theory is not scientifically proven by any empirical means, there are several reasons and proofs that the universe we live in my be just one of millions... maybe even infinite.
I don't think so, especially if by infinite you mean "never ending". I prefer the understanding of "infinity" to be "complete" or "all". I think there is a large contrast between "complete" vs "never ending": the first is a rational concept while the latter is not as it never becomes anything in particular.
Infinity means never ending. For example, a googolplexian is 0% of infinity.
And 1 is 0% of infinity. How about 0? How about infinity?

An infinite universe does not end.
And thus never becomes anything in particular. It's basically an "I dunno" and "I dunno" is not knowledge.

You're simplifing the article to your own advantage.
Maybe, but what I have stated is not untrue.

Even if you weren't there's still one premise unrefuted - that an infinite universe requires infinite universes as ours is finite.
I believe I've refuted infinite Universe via refuting infinity (ie infinity as never ending.) I do not have a problem with an infinite Universe where infinite = complete; whole; not lacking; all.

Infinity is a never ending number. It is a mathematical concept that can never be reached.
Precisely: it is never ending; not finite; never becoming; never reaching... It boils down to an "I dunno" and that's not knowledge or anything in particular, for that matter.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:04:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A finite universe in infinite space. Do you understand the concept of infinity and the necessity in having parallel universes exist? If space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:41:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:04:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
A finite universe in infinite space.
First of all, space (actually spacetime) is a SUBSET of the Universe and NOT the other way around. This is how it is understood in cosmology and the Big Bang Theory. So the proper thing to say would be "Infinite space (spacetime) in a finite universe." Even using the mathematical definition of "infinite" (ie never ending), this still leads to a problem: an infinite contained within a finite. Regardless, I disagree wholeheartedly with the above statement.

The Universe is defined as: all of existence; all things that exist irrespective of time. As such, I would agree that the Universe is "infinite" as long as "infinite" means "all; complete; not lacking" but NOT if it means "never ending". So defined, one can easily see that there is no "outside" the Universe: the Universe is complete.

Do you understand the concept of infinity and the necessity in having parallel universes exist?
Yes, I do understand both concepts of infinity: the flawed and incoherent concept of "never ending" and the coherent concept of "complete; whole".

If space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time
Spacetime does NOT go on forever: the mere fact that there is a limited number of ways that particles can be arranged NECESSARILY means that spacetime cannot go on forever.

Spacetime is not apart from the Universe, it is a part of the Universe and is DEFINED by the finite particles it contains.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 5:34:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 4:41:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Even using the mathematical definition of "infinite" (ie never ending), this still leads to a problem: an infinite contained within a finite.

Incorrect, using the mathematical definition the sum of some infinities is a finite. So there is no problem within the realm of mathematics that a finite could constant an infinite.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:42:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 5:34:12 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/28/2013 4:41:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Even using the mathematical definition of "infinite" (ie never ending), this still leads to a problem: an infinite contained within a finite.
Incorrect, using the mathematical definition the sum of some infinities is a finite. So there is no problem within the realm of mathematics that a finite could constant an infinite.
Actually, it is that the sum of certain infinite series will have a limit or finite sum. Examples are Gabriel's Horn, sum of 1/n, etc., but you must realize that the realm of mathematics is NOT EQUAL TO the physical world. Regardless, the point was that spacetime IS A SUBSET OF the Universe and NOT the other way around.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.