The balance between matter and antimatter
Why is the world we observe done mostly of matter with only traces of anti-matter?
Where is all the antimatter gone?
Or was there an imbalanced generation of more matter as opposed to antimatter?
This and other fundamental questions are being probed in the most expensive science experiment of all times, the Large Hadron Collider.
As for the answer to question number 3 and the apparent unbalance between matter and antimatter, it looks very much like there is no unbalance after all.
Equal amounts of matter and antimatter are statistically generated in pairs, but then where is all the antimatter gone since all we see and touch is made of matter?
Quite simply it is still out there, condensing into galaxies made of antimatter and also populated of life made of anti-cells and anti-molecules.
However, these galaxies are somewhat hard to detect, in the sense that the light emitted by them has a negative coefficient of refraction so you need to use concave lenses to be able to focus the anti-light on your sensor.
Another interesting point is that anti light has negative energy value, so a galaxy of anti-matter will shine a dark (cold) dot on your picture as opposed to normal light generating a positive energy bright spot on your camera sensor.
There are instances in which near Earth objects have been detected through Santilli’s telescopes whose light has negative coefficient of refraction (so not detectable with naked eye or conventional telescopes), but have positive energy content (bright spot on the camera sensor). Could this be the effect of some sort of cloaking device?
The death of dark energy and dark matter
As far as we can tell, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter coexist quietly into the universe both hiding from each other unless you use Santilli’s telescopes featuring concave lenses.
Another relevant fact about galaxies made of antimatter is that their gravity is attractive to likewise galaxies also made of antimatter, but it is repulsive to normal matter and galaxies made of matter, chiefly because the mass of antimatter particles is the same (in absolute value) as the normal particles we are used to, however their value is negative in sign, meaning their mass is negative (hence the inversion in the gravitational formulas).
The fact that masses could also be negative was an acceptable solution of the original Dirac equations, but this was causing some headaches with causality and hence the possibility of negative masses was forbidden among the scientific ton.
Matter of fact if we look up the positron mass on Google we find this answer:
However if you dare to measure said mass against the deflection of a low energy positron beam subjected to Earth gravity (a relatively inexpensive experiment), you might be disappointed to find out that the deflection happens upward (repulsively) and not downward (attractively) toward the ground, thus implying a gravity working upside down, caused by the negative sign of the mass value of the positron.
This causes an entire new vista on the cosmological model taught so far, as the universe is now cast into a dynamic equilibrium of matter and antimatter, with galaxies made of normal matter (or anti-matter) trying to collapse back unto themselves because of the action of attractive gravity pulls, but this collapse is countered by the presence of galaxies made of anti-matter (or matter) trying to push these galaxies further apart.
Then the universe is in a dynamic equilibrium or dance of galaxies made of matter and antimatter, with the gravitational influence of antimatter galaxies being the balancing term of the equation without the need to add complicate theories about dark matter and dark energy whose existence is required to balance flawed astrological models.
One final note about the anti matter dilemma: There appear to be experiments that have measured the mass of anti-hydrogen atoms as indeed being positive value, however the doubt here is that the anti proton of said atom is in fact a pseudoproton (namely a neutron (proton+electron) with an added bonded electron so to exhibit a net negative charge), paired to a positron orbiting around it. In this case the mass of said particle will look like the one as per our Galaxy.
The most meaningful experiment to prove the mass sign of anti particles is likely to be the one proposed above and namely the upward deflection of low energy positrons on “freefall” (or “free repulsion”) against Earth’s gravity.
The Tunguska event
As per earlier matter and anti-matter repel each other gravitationally and try to stay away from each other as much as possible, at least in their electrically neutral and balanced form.
So even if an asteroid made of anti-matter is flung toward Earth, the gravitational “anti-pull” of our planet will swerve the trajectory of said body away from Earth.
However, if the trajectory of the anti-asteroid is particularly well centered and the kinetic energy sufficiently high then not even the gravitational anti pull of the Earth will be able to swerve the trajectory hard enough to avoid the collision.
As soon as the anti-asteroid enters the upper atmosphere, the contact between the anti-asteroid atoms and the air atoms and molecules of our atmosphere will cause a sudden “nuclear evaporation” of said atoms into gamma rays (and also ultra cold ANTI-gamma rays!), so it will appear like an extremely bright and hot object falling through the sky.
The heat radiated from said object could be as high a to set forests or buildings on fire hundreds of kilometers away!
As the anti-asteroid progresses through the air it loses more and more of its mass into light radiation, however a relevant quantity of its original anti mass might still make its way to the Earth surface and the impact of anti-matter against a massive quantity of densely packed matter (Earth rock and soil).
When this happens the conversion of matter and anti-matter into light will be so intense and rapid to appear like a thermonuclear bomb, which is most likely what happened in Tunguska back in 1908.
What about the red shift of the expanding universe model?
The light coming from faraway galaxies is more redshifted than the light coming from nearby galaxies, so one explanation about this is that more distant galaxies are travelling away from us with much greater speed than closer galaxies thus suggesting a universe exponentially expanding its fringes to infinitum.
This idea of an universe expanding ad infinitum away from Earth suffers many flaws and inconsistencies since it requires Earth to be at the very center of the Universe whilst the rest evenly and exponentially moves away from this Earth centric Universe, and it also requires gravity to eventually flip over and become repulsive all of a sudden?
To balance this geocentric view of the universe (like the Ptolemaic system but on a galactic scale), scientists have come up with adjustment factors in their equations nowadays called dark matter and dark energy in order to explain the otherwise unexplainable reversal of gravitational pull into an exponential antigravitational push, and it gets even more bizarre when they try to explain the red shift differential between light coming from the edges and centers of galaxies.
Another possibility explaining the red shift of faraway galaxies is quite simply that light naturally red shifts as it travels through solid or semi solid/gaseous media also known as the tired light theory.
Energy from the photon is lost by the travelling light as it passes through the quasi-empty cosmic void made of extremely rarified gasses and particle, this phenomenon being called Iso Red Shift (IRS) caused by “hot” photons passing nearby “cold” intergalactic media made (mostly) of hydrogen.
This energy (frequency) loss is due not to adsorption and re-emission of photons (this would cause the light to scatter), but is instead a non contact energy transfer mechanism between the wave function of the photon with nearby atom’s wave functions, with the nearest and denser media being the first to get some energy off the photons, but also faraway atoms and molecules are getting some although at much lower levels.
Of course if “cold” light passes through “hot” gasses the effect will be reversed and energy will be passed on from the gas to the electromagnetic radiation thus causing an Iso Blu Shift (IBS).
This also explains why the light coming from the edge of galaxies is much more redshifted than the light captured from the center of said galaxies, without the need to add all sorts of dark matter and relativistic patches and corrections to the equations to try fit the experimental data.
Even simpler experiments involve tracking the redshift of the sunlight during the day. Of course a certain redshift amount is because of the doppler effect and the relative speed between Earth based observer and Sun, however most of the redshift at dawn and dusk is due effectively to “hot/bright” Sun photons losing some of their energy as they pass through the cold Earth atmosphere. The denser and longer the path through a gas (like at dawn and dusk), the more energy is lost and the redder the photon gets as opposed to when the Sun is at the Zenit and the photon travels through a thinner atmosphere length.
Tracking the frequency change of hydrogen adsorption lines or other atmospheric gasses for which the bands are very narrow (such as the O2 band) as the relative atmospheric mass length changes throughout the day should be an easy enough experiments perform.
In fact it looks as though the usual suspects already performed this easy experiment with the following results:
The interested reader is invited to lookup more scientific and detailed explanations in this article.
OK but what about the microwave background radiation?
Again we must clear the rubble of the current Big Bang theory classifying the MBR as a relic radiation from the early stages of a hot mess universe.
Instead we propose this new conjecture about the MBR origin as a re-emitted light generated by the rarefied intergalactic gasses previously “warmed up” by passing by “hot” photons.
As previously discussed the light emitted from stars loses energy and red shifts as it passes through non-entirely-void intergalactic spaces. As a consequence said rarefied gasses acquire a certain energy from said “hot” light and they warm up as a consequence to a temperature of circa 2.7 K.
Of course a gas left alone in empty space will eventually cool itself down and it will re-emit part of its energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation which is what astronomers call the microwave background radiation being uniformly emitted from all the uniformly rarefied atoms and molecules populating the intergalactic spaces.
The universe is expanding (slowly) after all
Where is the mass or anti mass in the universe coming from and where is it going?
The total universe mass, anti-mass, radiation, anti-radiation, etc (total ABSOLUTE energy and anti-energy) is continuously increasing or so it seems.
At proper pressures the atomic distances are short enough to trigger a runaway energy transfer from the underlying aetheric substrate, thus pouring fresh energy at the core of said supernovae event and causing the Universe to be an open system where new fresh energy is added during said cosmic events or even during plain nuclear fusion at the rate of 0.784 MeV for every neutron generated in a star along with supernova explosions helping out with the minting of new protons and electrons (or their anti matter counterparts in anti matter aggregates).
This extra energy and mass eventually allows the formation of heavier elements and the dispersion of the same within clouds of gasses between interstellar spaces. These gasses then constitute the raw materials for the formation of more complex structures, heavier planetary bodies, complex life and so forth.
Every time one such explosion happens, whether in a galaxy made of matter and anti-matter, energy (or negative energy) is leaked into existence within the otherwise isolated universe.
In fact local fluctuation in mass or anti mass generation (and relative total angular moment) is what causes fluctuations in the aetheric space, so a supernova explosion at one edge of the Universe might cause a ripple in the fabric of the aether and stimulate an equivalent event on the other side of the universe to balance the mass addition out in terms of anti mass and/or total angular moment.
This relentless net energy balance causes a constant addition of energy (mass) into existence through these galactic phenomena, and because of the matter/antimatter gravitational equilibrium described above we have the picture of a universe constantly expanding its radius of existence, its total quantity of planets, galaxies, life, etc.
What about the Big Bang?
However, if we look backward in time, then we should reach a point in time where total universal radius, mass, energy, life etc, should have been null?
Rest assured of the fact that we are no fans of the Big Bang theory, and in fact this counter theory irons out all common inconsistencies and non-linearities implied by the BBT, however we must face our darkest fears when we recess back in time to a point where everything was void and full of nothing.
The closest understanding available to us of this point when there was laterally nothing, probably not even the aetheric substrate which underlies the existence of everything else on it, comes from the Genesis.
The interested reader is invited to read through the Genesis with an open mind and consider the possibility of an intelligent function (that we shall call God), sandboxing the Universe into existence like a kid playing Minecraft.
It began with the creation of an aetheric substratum and subsequently populating it with enough light energy (anti energy) to jump start the existence of the first paleo-nucleosynthesis, until there was enough atomic differentiation and celestial bodies to try out more complexity by embodying itself into life forms of different degrees and complexities and so on and so forth up to where we are, right here and right now.
The next step in imagination is to contemplate the possibility that the Universe as we know it along with the aetheric substrate underlying it, might eventually run out of Time and that it might dissolve completely at some point in a remote future.
Let’s call it some kind Universal reboot, to take into account all the experience drawn from this cosmogenetical experience and all the life and things that came out of it, so that The Intelligence might re-cast a new system (a new aetheric substrate), a new type of Universe, with upgraded physics and phenomena, an even smarter and astonishing Creation, with more amazing underlying physics and formulas than the one we are living into right now.