The many, many dimensions of String Theories and the Multiverse constitute the extremes of fairytale physics brought about by the continuous cobbling-together of more and more fantastical, fictional forces, effects and invented particles in attempts to make sense of the puzzles inherent in the empirical evidence of experiments such as Young's double-slit phenomenon.

But even the photon, the point-particle of light, does not bear close examination. A while ago, I was having a discussion with an Open University student when I called the photon a massless particle. He looked at me with disdainful suspicion and asked how can a particle that carries energy, be massless?

It takes the undoctrinated to ask such glaringly obvious questions, when practicing physicists accept this kind of nonsensical description without question. Quantum physicists are too fond of suggesting that the quantum world with its "purely quantum effects" just cannot be related to the macro world in which we live.

The definition of the photon makes no sense - not to common sense. But it should!

This Blog offers a simple, common-sense description of the photon, and of every particle: from this, and directly from this, applying the same logical explanation, I am able to desribe all quantum effects and processes in four-dimensional spacetime, with no extra dimensions, no alternative universes - and far, far fewer particles.

Saturday, 3 December 2016

Matter, Antimatter and Time's Arrow

The following theory was published by myself on the 1st August 2013:

"The Question
When the universe came into being at the big bang event, matter was split from its counterpart antimatter. In energy terms, antimatter is the opposite to matter. This means that, should the two meet, they counteract and cancel each other out. The sum energy of the universe is, as it has always been, zero.
But as scientists use more and more advanced and sophisticated instruments and probes to explore and measure the universe, it has become clear that there is practically no antimatter.
What has happened to it all? There should be as much antimatter as there is matter; not roughly as much, but exactly as much!
So, where has all the antimatter gone?

The Solution
So, where is all the antimatter? Why didn't the matter and antimatter annihilate one another during the big bang?
Here's the answer: matter is curved space; and time and space are the same thing. Without matter, there is no space or time. Matter creates time. Antimatter, therefore, creates anti-time – time that runs in the opposite direction, that is. That is not my idea – it has been stated many times, by many theorists. For example, the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation (Richard P. Feynman and Ernst Stueckelberg) states that antimatter is identical to matter but moves backwards in time.
What it means though, is that as soon as matter and antimatter were created in the big bang beginning of our universe, they existed at different times. They both existed in each other's past, matter moving away into its future, antimatter moving into its future. Matter and antimatter could not annihilate one another, as, at the very first moment of time, they existed at different times. They could never contact one another.
This means to say that the universe is older than itself. Every second that goes by here, so our past expands into the past. We cannot see the antimatter as it is just too far away. We'd need to see before the big bang; and that we shall never be able to do. But this shows the nature of infinity, that it is as dynamic as everything else in the universe. What was before the big bang? The universe was – our antimatter universe, that is. And could there be life in the antimatter universe? Yes. The antimatter universe is essentially exactly like our own – because it is our own universe! The only difference is, that from there, we are antimatter, with time on this side expanding into their past.
There is a symmetry to the universe, simple, beautiful and wondrously balanced, with no alternatives, no branes (membrane universes) or hidden dimensions. They are simply not necessary."

Since then, a small team of scientists, Dr Julian Barbour of College Farm in the UK, Dr Tim Koslowski of the University of New Brunswick in Canada and Dr Flavio Mercati of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, also in Canada, have published a scientific paper which reaches the same conclusion.
This paper was published in Physics, in the Physical Review Letters, 0n 31st October 2014 (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.181101), “Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time”.

An overview of this paper appeared in the Daily Mail on-line, by Jonathan O'Callaghan, from 10th December 2014:

"Did the Big Bang create a 'mirror universe' where time moves BACKWARDS? New theory could explain our past - and our future

        Scientists have proposed a radical new theory of time for the universe
       UK physicist Dr Julian Barbour and others say there are two arrows of time
       These move in opposite directions and both formed at the Big Bang
       This means at the Big Bang there were two universes that formed
       Observers in either universe would view the other as moving backwards

The inexorable tick of time moving forward is something that has puzzled scientists for more than a century.

But now a new theory has been proposed that may help answer some questions - at least with regards to the beginning of time and what happened in the 'past'.

They say that at the moment of the Big Bang a 'mirror universe' to our own was created that moves in the opposite direction through time - and intelligent beings in each one would perceive the other to be moving backwards through time."
 Other reviews of the scientific paper by Dr Barbour et al. can be seen as follows:

Article by Gregory Walton, published by The Daily Telegraph on 10th December 2014:
Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?

Article by Andrew Griffin, published by The Independent on 11th December 2014:
'Mirror universe' suggests Big Bang created place where time goes backwards

Before 1st August 2013, there was no other published information on this theory. It was published by me first.

No comments:

Post a Comment