[MattFaw (OP)]

When I look at simulations of the large-scale structure of the universe, the voids look to me like blast-waves, the way explosions in space look, but without the remaining central matter.  And the filaments look like they are on the edge between various blast-waves.

So I considered the early-universe matter/antimatter annihilation period, and wondered if the very first generation of annihilations might have caused chain reactions, emptying out the voids, and actually shoveling matter into the filaments.  It would help explain why we see galaxies form so early.

This video is an animation I made to help express this idea visually.  It starts from a t=zero in which infinite matter and antimatter appear within infinite spacetime, before quantum randomness takes over and the chain reaction begins.

I recommend seeing it on youtube, full-screen.

It is a cartoon sketch of a theory, and is incomplete, for the sake of keeping the video short.  But I have a couple sequel videos, which I'll post below, for those who wish to dig deeper.  And there are tons of details that I had to leave out, but which I am eager to discuss with you here.  I look forward to it.

Thank you for approaching the video with an open mind!  The first 90 seconds are a fast-forward version of the idea, so you can get a sense of it early on.

Matt Faw

(Edit: I have changed this OP and the title of the thread, after receiving feedback.  I'm trying to make my introduction more about the theory, and less about the visualization).

[MattFaw (OP)]

Part 2 explores the idea that Nothing has the paradoxical ability to split into a symmetry,+1 and -1, matter and antimatter.  1+(-1)=Nothing.  Importantly, spacetime is also created from that Nothing, as matter cannot exist without space or time.  Matter is inherently linked to its spacetime.  I think the intricate relationship between matter and spacetime may help explain the too-fast rotational curves of galaxies, among other mysteries.

Thanks for keeping an open mind while you check it out!

[MattFaw (OP)]

This third video is something I made a few years ago, and is a deeper dive into the idea that galactic spacetime can move independently of the intergalactic spacetime around it.  It explores the idea that frame-dragging is responsible for the too-fast rotational curves of galaxies.  And it introduces a new metaphor for thinking about spacetime.

Thank you for watching it with an open mind!

[Origin]

And there are tons of details that I had to leave out, but which I am eager to discuss with you here.

I don't really want to watch videos, what is it you want to discuss?

[Halc]

Every visualization I've seen of t=zero looks like an explosion, rushing out from a point.  But in an infinite universe, t=zero must also have been infinite, just a much smaller and more densely packed infinity.

Indeed, this is rarely conveyed in pop descriptions of the theory.
The explosion from a point seems to be the only choice of methods to convey it with pictures since pictures necessarily are pre-existing space into which the illustrated thing must bang.  So forgive the visualizations which effectively depict a finite size (presumably what is now the visible) universe that starts effectively at a point and gets bigger, instead of an unbounded universe compressed to an arbitrarily high density.

I also did not wade through the long video, only skimming it briefly. Policy of the site is to make your point here. So what exactly do you propose that 't=zero' was like?  The video seems to harp considerably on the matter/antimatter (+/-) thing.

So I animated a visualization of an infinite and perfectly ordered universe at t=zero, and then let that universe play out, to see what would happen.

What rules do you think you're simulating?  The early universe was not perfectly ordered, else it would still be perfectly uniform. Quantum mechanics doesn't work that way.

[jeffreyH]

As Halc points out, the entropy of the universe wasn't zero at the time of the big bang.

Here is a link to a discussion on the subject.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-was-the-value-of-the-entropy-of-the-Universe-shortly-after-the-Big-Bang

[puppypower]

An interesting parallel to the observed matter and antimatter asymmetry of our universe, is connected to life and proteins. Proteins made in the lab, will form equal amounts of right-handed and left handed helixes; stereoisomers. Stereoisomers have the same chemical formulas but differ in how the atoms are laid out in 3-D space. These difference in their 3-D layout in space impact polarized light and will bend the light left or right. 

Life broke this lab made symmetry by preferring only left handed helixes. The universe is similar in that matter and antimatter will form in the lab, but the universe chose matter and broke the lab based symmetry. In both cases, the entropy of the universe lowered by choosing one instead of two, since this choice lowered the degree of complexity.

In the lab, proteins will form both types of helixes; left and right, just as matter and antimatter form as pairs in the lab. But only the left handed protein is bioactive, just as only matter is the main active basis for our material universe. This tells me these pairs are not equal and opposite.  The lab results do not reflect observed reality, but have created a synthetic faux positive for a result that did not result in the natural environment.

In terms of the entropy of the early universe, the asymmetry that resulted when matter and antimatter were reduced to only matter, would have lowered the entropy of the universe. This would have released a lot of energy; heat of asymmetry. This would then create an entropic potential or a potential to increase entropy, again, due to the second law. The path for increasing the entropy would need to change direction, due to the loss of antimatter and symmetry.

In life, the formation of left handed protein, led to enzyme catalysis. Enzyme catalysis provides activation energy for chemical reactions;  lowers the activation energy. The left handed enzymes contain intrinsic free energy that can be used to lower the activation energy. Only left handed proteins are bioactive or contain this extra free energy. The same appears to be true of matter.  Matter should have extra free energy for catalyzed paths of synthesis.

Relative to our universe, the early formation of hydrogen; protons and electrons, from the matter asymmetry , broke the lab based symmetry of negative and positive charge. Particle collider data has demonstrated that the electron, which contains mass and negative change is a single particle. While the proton which is positive charge and mass is not a single particle.

Negative charge, via the single particle nature of the electron, is not self standing, but is intimately connected to a unified force that integrates negative charge with mass. Positive charge does not have this same intimate connection to gravity, except at extreme gravitational pressures; maybe neutron density. This asymmetry of charge, at lower than neutron density pressures; expansion,  would have also lowered entropy, released energy, and created another entropic potential; periodic table of elements and chemistry appear.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is connected to this entropic potential. The potential to increase complexity or entropy, in light of the unification of negative charge with mass, adds wild cards in space, time and momentum not expected of lab based charge symmetry.

[MattFaw (OP)]

As Halc points out, the entropy of the universe wasn't zero at the time of the big bang.

Here is a link to a discussion on the subject.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-was-the-value-of-the-entropy-of-the-Universe-shortly-after-the-Big-Bang [nofollow]

Hi.  Thanks for your response.  My animation shows a simplified version, for clarity of message.  But the model doesn't rely on the entropy being zero, at the very beginning.

[MattFaw (OP)]

An interesting parallel to the observed matter and antimatter asymmetry of our universe, is connected to life and proteins. Proteins made in the lab, will form equal amounts of right-handed and left handed helixes; stereoisomers. Stereoisomers have the same chemical formulas but differ in how the atoms are laid out in 3-D space. These difference in their 3-D layout in space impact polarized light and will bend the light left or right. 

Life broke this lab made symmetry by preferring only left handed helixes. The universe is similar in that matter and antimatter will form in the lab, but the universe chose matter and broke the lab based symmetry. In both cases, the entropy of the universe lowered by choosing one instead of two, since this choice lowered the degree of complexity.

Hi puppypower, I agree that the asymmetry you describe can justify a belief that there is also an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.  But do you think there is actually a good argument for that asymmetry? 

If there's a model which allows us to keep symmetry between matter and antimatter, wouldn't that be preferable?

[MattFaw (OP)]

I also did not wade through the long video, only skimming it briefly. Policy of the site is to make your point here. So what exactly do you propose that 't=zero' was like?  The video seems to harp considerably on the matter/antimatter (+/-) thing.

The idea is to provide an alternate explanation for the existence of voids, and the appearance of filaments.  To me, the voids look a lot like blastwaves, the way explosions in space look, except without any central matter.  And the filaments look like the matter which flung together from multiple blastwaves, happening from all directions. 

I considered the matter/antimatter annihilation period in the standard model, and hypothesized that the first particle pairs to annihilate could provoke local chain reactions, clearing out the voids, and pushing matter into the filaments.

May I recommend watching at least the first 90 seconds of the video?  It's a fast-forward version of the story.  It's a very visual idea, and is a lot easier to absorb through the animation.

Thanks!

[MattFaw (OP)]

I have changed the OP and the name of the thread, to match with feedback I was getting in the thread.  This is the first forum I've posted to; still figuring things out.  The new title and OP are oriented more around the model, rather than the visualization.

[evan_au]

Nothing has the paradoxical ability to split into a symmetry,+1 and -1, matter and antimatter.

It is true that the origin of the Big Bang is a mystery (t=0).

But, given a source of (potential) energy, it is known that something like gamma rays can produce equal amount of matter and anti-matter.
- The second mystery is why, in some parts of the universe, it produced slightly unequal amounts of matter & anti-matter?
- This is what left some matter left over for us.

Are you implying that in some of the voids, there may have been a slight surplus of antimatter, so some of the filaments might be made of antimatter?

[MattFaw (OP)]

Are you implying that in some of the voids, there may have been a slight surplus of antimatter, so some of the filaments might be made of antimatter?

Hi evan_au, thanks for your reply.

As a matter of fact, yes, I am making that claim.  I know the usual arguments against the ongoing existence of antimatter systems, but I think there is a workable solution.  It's just a deep one, so bear with me here.

I am hypothesizing that matter/antimatter annihilations actually led to the expansion of space, which is the cause of the voids.  I cover this better in part 2, above.  Because space has expanded everywhere that matter and antimatter collided, therefore any remaining pockets of matter or antimatter are becoming increasingly isolated from each other.  Since the space between them is expanding, they will never meet and destroy each other. 

In my model, because the filaments were formed from the early-universe annihilation period, there was never a time in which gravity played a particularly important role, as compared to expansion.  Gravity only works locally, and can't overcome expansion.

This is where it gets deep.

I am hypothesizing that the infinite field of matter and antimatter, within the infinite field of spactime, arose from an infinite field of nothing.  That Nothing in this case is quantum, the same as matter.  And that every quanta of Nothing gave rise to a matter/antimatter pair (this is a simplification), +1+(-1)=Nothing.  That's the 'Big Split' in my title, the splitting of all matter and antimatter from this infinite field of Nothing quanta.

Importantly, spacetime was also birthed within this infinite field.  And I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that spacetime was also birthed in quanta, because every particle needed its own bit of spacetime.  That's the purpose of showing the 'bubble' imagery for spacetime in the video.

My hypothesis is that all the matter which was shoveled into the filaments by the early annihilation period kept its own personal bubble of spacetime with it.  But the matter/antimatter pairs that annihilated, no longer constrained their bubbles of spacetime, and those were free to expand.  They continue to expand until today and beyond, because there is no force to stop them.  In part 2, I talk about how this might answer some mysteries about the too-fast rotational curves of galaxies.

And finally, of course we witness annihilations of matter and antimatter here on earth, but don't see spacetime expanding.  And I must admit, this is the most hand-waviest part of my argument.  But I think it's possible that our system of spacetime, constrained by matter, may be too strong for tiny annihilations to show an effect that we would recognize as expansion.  I'm not even sure what 'expanding spacetime' would look like, within the context of an LHC experiment.  But perhaps in the middle of voids, where there is no matter to constrain the spacetime, the empty bubbles are free to expand without friction.

Again, I explain it a lot better in the part 2 video, with the help of visual aids.  I hope you give it a chance.

[Halc]

The idea is to provide an alternate explanation for the existence of voids, and the appearance of filaments.  To me, the voids look a lot like blastwaves, the way explosions in space look, except without any central matter.  And the filaments look like the matter which flung together from multiple blastwaves, happening from all directions.

Are you implying that in some of the voids, there may have been a slight surplus of antimatter, so some of the filaments might be made of antimatter?

As a matter of fact, yes, I am making that claim.

A local imbalance is not unreasonable, but I don’t see how the surplus would be pushed significantly to the edges since the matter/antimatter annihilations would be everywhere, not just isolated explosions precipitated at these (relatively) widely separated voids.
If the matter was pushed to the edge, it would meet antimatter (50% probability) from the neighbor void which it meets, where your simulation seems to have all the filaments the same, implying something other than what you say just above, that some of the voids have a surplus of antimatter.

If such were the case, there would be today boundaries separating at close range the regions domimated by one on each side, and the radiation from their interaction would stand out against the normal matter-matter interactions. How is this addressed?

I considered the matter/antimatter annihilation period in the standard model, and hypothesized that the first particle pairs to annihilate could provoke local chain reactions, clearing out the voids, and pushing matter into the filaments.

Only explosions of material surrounded by void produce this effect of the material being expelled to the edges. If the energy is uniformly distributed everywhere, it increases temperature and pressure, but results in no actual motion clearing out a void. Said imbalances might affect that equilibrium.
Do you know how shaped charges work? The mathematics behind it would be helpful for the simulation. It isn’t trivial.

[Halc]

May I recommend watching at least the first 90 seconds of the video?  It's a fast-forward version of the story.  It's a very visual idea, and is a lot easier to absorb through the animation.

In the beginning there was nothing, and suddenly there is this perfect infinite regular arrangement of matter and antimatter. Where did that come from? Something from nothing isn’t logically supported by any model that I know. The big bang does not propose something from nothing, and it certainly doesn’t suggest either matter or antimatter existing in the early epochs of the universe.

I am hypothesizing that matter/antimatter annihilations actually led to the expansion of space, which is the cause of the voids.

The expansion had to already be going on well before the matter/antimatter even first formed, since equal intense pressure on all sides from the energy release isn’t going to accelerate anything at all. You take an infinite volume of stationary hydrogen and oxygen and spark a flame everywhere at once, no expansion will result. Just fire that goes nowhere, and stays hot forever while we’re at it.
Ignite the chemical in a limited density of regularly distributed places, and yes, movement and pressure waves will result, but still no expansion.

[puppypower]

An interesting parallel to the observed matter and antimatter asymmetry of our universe, is connected to life and proteins. Proteins made in the lab, will form equal amounts of right-handed and left handed helixes; stereoisomers. Stereoisomers have the same chemical formulas but differ in how the atoms are laid out in 3-D space. These difference in their 3-D layout in space impact polarized light and will bend the light left or right. 

Life broke this lab made symmetry by preferring only left handed helixes. The universe is similar in that matter and antimatter will form in the lab, but the universe chose matter and broke the lab based symmetry. In both cases, the entropy of the universe lowered by choosing one instead of two, since this choice lowered the degree of complexity.

Hi puppypower, I agree that the asymmetry you describe can justify a belief that there is also an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.  But do you think there is actually a good argument for that asymmetry? 

If there's a model which allows us to keep symmetry between matter and antimatter, wouldn't that be preferable?

If there had been perpetual symmetry between matter and antimatter, the universe would have remained in a dynamic equilibrium between photons <----> matter + antimatter. If we can break the symmetry, we can also break this equilibrium equation, and allow a net forward movement into matter. This is what is observed. This is not to say there may not be pockets of matter and antimatter equilibria, but this is the exception and a matter universe is the rule.

In terms of space, two properties of matter are matter takes up space and matter has inertia. A perpetual symmetry between matter and anti-matter would create the equivalent of antimatter taking up negative space, in the sense that antimatter can cancel the space taken up by matter, through annihilation, to re-form energy. This annihilation will also remove the inertia of the matter, as matter becomes zero.

The expansion of the early universe represented a huge increase in the space and inertia of the primordial materials, which may not have been possible with constant matter and anti-matter symmetry and constant equilibrium annihilation back to energy. In this scenario, space and inertia would come and go, like a pulsation of the primordial atom.

If we get rid of antimatter symmetry, the space requirement for the matter now has to go up and the inertia of the matter can also persist, There would also be a lowering of universal entropy, that will release energy; heat of asymmetry.  If the anti-matter was converted to energy, while matter persisted; conservation of energy,  the highest level energy quantum would now be too low in value, to form any more matter and anti-matter pairs. The energy can now only become part of a matter based equilibrium, that also contained a large entropic potential; push toward even higher matter complexity with expanding space-time requirements.

The speed of light reference.

Where I differ, compared to the standard BB theory, is I begin the analysis before space and time, in the speed of light reference. If you plug the speed of light into the equations of Special Relativity space and time become discontinuous at the speed of light. This means that space-time also become discontinuous. Space and time become decoupled, allowing each to act independently of the other. One can move in space without the constraint of time and/or move in time without the constraint of space. A Quantum jump or worm hole allows movement in space in zero time. These are two speed of light reference de-couped time and space affects that overlap space-time.

According to Special Relativity, mass cannot move at the speed of light. While distance and time become discontinuous at the speed of light. This means at the speed of light, there is no mass and therefore no space requirement, since there is no mass to take up space. Matter is responsible for the persistence of space-time and not the other way around. This makes sense since matter is tangible and contains potential energy, while space and time are reference variables that work on paper. Matter also allows space and time to couple and space-time. Mass places limits not found at the speed of light.

Once matter persisted, by absorbing anti-matter, space, inertia and energy below a threshold will  appear. Matter also creates a wall between inertial and the speed of light reference, allow inertial to persist in space and time, via space-time.

At the speed of light reference, with space and time not connected as space-time, entropy is infinite, since all combinations of space and time, even those not allowable in space-time, become possible. To form energy for the material universe from nothing; no space-time yet, there needs to be a reduction in the degrees of freedom within decoupled space and time, so infinite entropy can lower, at least, locally. The loss of entropy will release energy; zero point energy.

For example, if we began with time and space decoupled, I could simulate space-time, by overlapping space without time, with time without space, at only certain point and instants, that have the same limitations as space-time. Energy will appear due to the local loss of entropy. The formation of matter and antimatter from energy will increase the entropy. This is driven by the infinite entropy equilibrium in the speed of light reference.

Since the breaking of the symmetry of matter and antimatter, to move forward, will need to lower the entropy, this would need to come from the speed of light reference. This is where the Standard Theory begins.

If you look at the quantum universe, quantum implies more gaps compared to continuous functions and equations. These gaps in time and/or space save time and/or space. If the hydrogen atom had infinite energy levels, and we assume the hydrogen atom was an infinite sided dice, it will take more time to cycle through all these infinite  states, compared to only a handful of quantum energy levels. A hydrogen quantum dice, has fewer sides, which speeds up the time it takes to reach a milestone side, for each step in evolution.  The loss of antimatter could be achieved by adding  extra time potential from the speed of light reference.

In our first simulation, we used decoupled space and time to simulate space-time. The loss of entropy releases energy. The energy then become matter and antimatter since this increases the entropy to some extent.

To this we will now add time potential, to the space-time simulation. Now our universe has two parts time and one part distance, which is acceleration, via a second time vector. This secondary loss of entropy also releases energy, but this is not the same as the first, due to the secondary time vector. Energy is distance and time, but now we have distance, time and time. The net affect is energy where the frequency changes; extra time potential, but not the original wavelength. This extra energy suggests the formation of composite waves, where two wavelengths can add up differently from the shared amplified frequency. I can visualize one of the wave universe model interference grids. This breaks the symmetry of matter and antimatter in favor of a quantum universe with matter and extra time potential.

[MattFaw (OP)]

In the beginning there was nothing, and suddenly there is this perfect infinite regular arrangement of matter and antimatter. Where did that come from? Something from nothing isn’t logically supported by any model that I know. The big bang does not propose something from nothing, and it certainly doesn’t suggest either matter or antimatter existing in the early epochs of the universe.

Hi Halc.   I'm puzzled by your statement "The big bang does not propose something from nothing."  That's precisely what the Standard Model proposes.  Before T=zero, there was no matter, no energy, no time, and no space.  And then suddenly, there was infinite everything. 

Of course, my model WILL differ from other models, because models are explanatory devices.  The question is whether my model fits the evidence or not.

[Halc]

Hi Halc.   I'm puzzled by your statement "The big bang does not propose something from nothing."  That's precisely what the Standard Model proposes.  Before T=zero, there was no matter, no energy, no time, and no space.  And then suddenly, there was infinite everything.

Reference please. I assume you're speaking of the ΛCDM model, and I cannot find any mention of condition before time zero, which is a reference to a time which you paradoxically said doesn't exist.
The standard model describes the evolution of the cosmos from its initial state near T=zero, but does not propose any metaphysical explanation for the cause of that early state.

I may also be off, but they're not sure about infinite everything. Total energy of the universe may well be zero.

There are proposals for the physics outside ('before') the big bang, but they're not part of the model to my knowledge. Eternal inflation theory is one of them, which is one of the few ideas that seems to address the seemingly improbable fine tuning of our physics here.  I think under that model, the big bang was not an event, but an ongoing process that just happened to occur in our immediate vicinity around 13.8 billion years ago.  This sort of implies that there actually is a direction where the universe is the oldest (and thus where it 'started') which would be apparent if we could measure the age of the universe to a hecka lot more digits in the various directions.

[puppypower]

One common property of matter is that matter occupies space. Conceptually, since an equivalent amount of anti-matter can annihilate matter, thereby removing all the space that the matter once occupied, implies that anti-matter has the mathematical equivalent of negative space. The resultant photons can overlap in space. This simple analysis suggests the singularity of the BB could have been an equilibrium balance of matter, antimatter and energy, where space cancels to a point.

If antimatter occupied space, than it would not be equal and opposite to matter and an asymmetry would exist.

Mass and matter also have inertia, which can also be cancelled out by anti-matter. The antimatter will annihilate the matter and therefore cancel the property of matter call inertia. The singularity will occupy point space and have minimal inertia due to anti-matter and matter. This minimal inertia reminds me of absolute zero; single emergent vibration that disappears immediately. 

To get this cold singularity to the hot big bang stage, we need to eliminate the space and inertia killing aspects of anti-matter, so both space and inertia can both be expressed in time. This type of transitions was observed, since the singularity expanded, space appears and matter becomes dominant. 

The question is how do you get rid of the antimatter without going before time equals zero, since this is not yet part of the standard models? This is not about right and wrong but traditions.

One possible way would be to segregate the matter and antimatter within the singularity; separate the waters from the waters. In this hypothetical scenario, we would get a big bang from the matter plus a big collapse where negative space interacts with matter. Data does show that the superstructure of the universe, as well as galaxies started to form very early in the universe. In this scenario, negative space will act upon expanding space, but in a type of pocketed way. The negative space that are dominate could also leave behind black holes, where space becomes very limited in terms do matter. It could also create voids in space, due to pockets of negative space.

If antimatter does not occupy negative space, then there is a inherent asymmetry with matter that would suggest that matter is more stable, since matter was the one left standing.

Another consideration is relativity. If antimatter occupies negative space, its impact on matter would be similar to gravity, and it would cause space to contract and time to slow. Pure matter in open space would speed up time relative to space that included antimatter. The two clocks will run at different paces; time potential.  This segregation in time does not create an immediate annihilation, but rather antimatter is slowed in time, thereby allowing each to act independent of each other in time. Matter plays short ball and antimatter long ball.