Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: a_young_genius! on 01/08/2013 10:02:44
-
There is been a great mystery about our universe, brought about by perhaps the answer to a very similar mystery. The Big Bang is considered to quite possibly be the answer to the great question: How did the universe start? If it is indeed correct though, it brings to the surface an equally huge question. Scientists believe that when the Big Bang happened, equal amounts of matter and anti matter were created. However, when the two come into contact with each other, a huge explosion happens, and the particles 'vanish'. If this is the case, then how come the universe didn't just blow up the moment it was created?
U= (am)C²
1,000,000,000
U is simply Universe. a is antimatter. m stands for matter. C² is the speed of light from Einstein's great formula proving the equality of mass and energy. The theory is that when the explosion happened, since you can't destroy mass or energy, the mass would convert to energy. Since everything was so new, the energy was unstable and a very tiny amount tried to convert back into matter and antimatter, but only managed to convert to matter. This process repeated until there was just matter and energy. Over time, due to the remaining matter, this energy would convert itself into matter. If it had attempted to convert to antimatter, then the whole process would repeat again. This is my theory.
It seems unlikely that an unknown person could provide an answer to a question that many great scientists have failed, but even if this was correct, then it would not answer everything to do with antimatter.
Solar flares release tiny antimatter particles, and there is an enormous plume of antimatter coming from the center of our galaxy. I may have the answer to this as well. Whereas my other theory works on the basis on antimatter and matter convert into a combined energy, this one requires a third theory.
Imagine if at places of great, but jumbled gravity, antimatter converted into a seperate energy to matter. When the energy converts back, it has to simply all go to antimatter since that is all it has ever 'known'.
This are simply the ideas of someone who has studied antimatter and other cosmic mysteries recently. If there's no way it could possibly be right, just say so. But also if it has a possibility, please let me know
-
With all due respect to established ideas, the poster should know that there are huge consistency problems on current cosmological conjectures. Some of them are treated in details by R. M. Santilli in the French interview
http://www.i-b-r.org/Prof-Santilli-Interview.html
In antimatter, the scientific scenario is even worse than that for ,matter galaxies because Einstein theories cannot provide a "classical" representation of "neutral" antimatter stars or planets. Therefore, everybody assumes that antimatter does not exist in appreciable amount in the universe, of course, to be compatible with Einstein, but things may be quite different in reality when the proper antimatter theory is available as shown in the paper
AN INTRODUCTION TO
SANTILLI'S ISODUAL REPRESENTATION OF ANTIMATTER AND
THE ENSUING PROBLEM OF DETECTING ANTIMATTER ASTEROIDS
Richard Anderson, Anil A. Bhalekar, B. Davvaz, Pradeep Muktibodh,
Vijay M. Tangde, and Thomas Vougiouklis
Numta Bulletin, issue 6, January 2013
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Antimatter-2013.pdf
I am posting here with my real name and would appreciate comments in favor or against the emerging new Renaissance in Cosmology, but only after acquiring some knowledge of the new vistas.
Jerdsay Kadeisvili
jvkadeisvili@gmail.com
PS. If any of you wants to have a real laugh, you should look at Prof. Santilli's hilarious faces during the interview on the ongoing obscurantism in cosmology
http://www.i-b-r.org/Prof-Santilli-faces.html
PPLEASE SEND ME SERIOUS COMMENTS! PLEASE! AND NOT THE USUAL TRASH! THANKS