ohwilleke

Some people, Feynman among them, have considered and not soundly rejected the theory that anti-matter is simply ordinary matter which is moving backwards in time -- with a law of nature being that charges reserving themselves when they are moving backwards in time.

While this makes cause and effect rather confusing, it would provide cogent explainations of two difficult questions in physics: (1) Why is our universe mostly made of matter rather than anit-matter? and (2) How could everything come into existence from nothing in the Big Bang.

If you take the backward in time theory of antimatter to its logical conclusion, then, at the Big Bang you have a huge amount of energy coalessing into matter and anti-matter. But, the anti-matter is moving towards pre-Big Bang time as fast as it can, and the regular matter is moving forward in time as fast as it can. Some energy coalesses into matter post-Big Bang, so anti-matter is not non-existant in our world, but it is obviously very scarce. Much more scarce than any proposed CP violations alone could explain.

Presumably, the anti-matter world looks a lot like the world of matter that we live in. It is as eternal as we presume our own matter world to be. Hence, there is a full time line from T=negative infinity to T=positive infinity, with the Big Bang designated as T=0.

This view of anti-matter could also explain apparently "instant" reactions in twin effect situations (not the only possible explaination, this has been discussed at some length already). Rather than traveling faster than the speed of light, the information travels backwards in time at the speed of light, give or take, to the twin moment, and then forward in time at the speed of light or slower towards the twin particle.

Francois Tremblay

Tsk. Learn some logic.

eh

How can you have negative infinity? What exactly is that referring to?

ohwilleke

Mathematicians often use negative infinity. In this context it means that an infinite amount of time extends before the Big Bang, as well as after it.

ohwilleke

Nothing illogical about it. I don't know if there is support for it or not, but if it is illogical, please suggest why.

schu

I like the idea that time is nothing. In other words if there is no motion there is no time. Kind of on the order of cold is the absence of heat and dark is the absence of light. That would seem to mean that one couldn't go back in time and violate causality which also makes sense to me. Unfortunately I probable will not live long enough for the TOE to be settled so I may never know.

Friar Bellows

On the question of a congruence between mathematics and reality:

<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009" target="_blank">Is "the theory of everything" merely the ultimate ensemble theory?</a> by Max Tegmark

Have fun. Now back to your regular station.

emphryio

I have sort of the same idea as Schu about time, in that it is simply just the motion of objects relative to one another. (I have a problem with Einstein's relativity theories which I believe say that light isn't relative?)

But basically Ohwilleke, you're talking about stuff that is over the heads of most. Personally although I heard of anti-matter, I don't remember how exactly we know it exists, therefore I'm not up to speculating about what anti-matter actually is.

But I disagree with Franc28 and think that's a rather insulting thing to say.