|
|
|
|
| Posted by
Samuel A. (Sam) Cox on January 22, 2005 at 13:01:24 (Message posted from "unknown" at 68.45.160.182) - explanation In Reply to: "Could be...or could it?" posted by keith on January 22, 2005 at 10:19:49
I appreciate the use of the word "here"...as observed from our frame of reference. I think it is obvious that considering the instability of antimatter within our space-time lattice we would not expect its behaviour to even approximate that of matter...or the reverse of matter. Of course the two sides of the universe are chiral in this model anyway. It would be expected that the phases and phase transitions of an antimatter half of the universe would be different...water might not be liquid between 0-100 degrees centigrade for example. Honestly, I believe the most nieve question of twentieth century physics was the sking of the question: "Whatever happened to all the antimatter at the beginning of the universe?" Astronomy demands twice as mich mass as we observe to explain the motions of items as close as our own galactic spiral arm. Morover, that mass has to be positioned wit the existing stars. It has to be. The "Dark matter" is Baryonic and it is over the horizon. The amount needed matches the dual model. Remember, on the antimatter side of the universe, matter would be as exotic as antimatter is on this side, however just as we can build antimatter atoms in this space/time lattice so long as it is protected frm matter, matter atoms could be created on the other side, so long as they were protected from the mundane and common antimatter. Lastly, the evidence for a dual universe is botrh mathematical and observational; no obervational evidence to date exludes the model and all can be interpereted in the light of such a model. |
| Topic Thread: |
|
Followup postings for this message are closed. |