CERN Research: Universe Should Not Exist

Thanks for Gerard McEk for posting about a paper published by researchers at CERN who have concluded that based on the Big Bang Theory, the universe shouldn’t exist at all because the equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have annihilated itself.

From a press release from Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany:

Scientists are still in search of a difference between protons and antiprotons which would help to potentially explain the existence of matter in our universe. However, physicists in the BASE collaboration at the CERN research center have been able to measure the magnetic force of antiprotons with almost unbelievable precision. Nevertheless, the data do not provide any information about how matter formed in the early universe as particles and antiparticles would have had to completely destroy one another. Christian Smorra, first author of the study states:

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” explained . “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?”

There’s got to be an explanation somewhere for this discrepancy; perhaps a new theory is needed.

  • The Universe exist because there is a creator. A fact that evolutionary scientist have difficulty with even though all the evidence points to it.

    • malkom700

      If we reject the possibility of thinking open the door by the creator then we can reach that conclusion.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Who created this creator?

      • What gives us the right to question our own existence if not a creator? If not a creator then the question is irrelevant. Live, die there is no meaning, nothing you think matters.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The fact that synergy exists in the universe, which makes the building of higher levels of order possible in an entropic universe. We have both the freedom and capability to create the order which the creator or lack there of failed to deliver.

          It is threadbare and lazy to argue that the lack of a creator would be some devastating blow to morality, order, meaning or defining some existential crisis. Be the best you can imagine yourself and bring yourself to be, that is meaning enough. Provide new levels of synergy and order. This is your godless heathen mission.

          • Joel Robinson

            What is the use of a computer (hardware) without a program (software) to run it? No such thing exist.

          • Ophelia Rump

            It is far to easy to lock yourself into the current paradigm. Each generation re-conceptualizes the universe within it’s own familiar metaphors. Each prior generation therefore must have been wrong.
            It therefore stands to reason that the current and future metaphors are also incorrect.

            Maybe they are not a reliable tool?

    • LarryJ

      It’s all just a simulation. We’re all AI’s running around in a matrix. Someone’s pet project. Once you live a very long time big long projects become interesting. In 30 years we’ll be running our own virtual realities and our little AI people will look at their virtual sky we made for them and wonder what it’s all about.

      • Husky

        Actually … Think about Schroedingers cat … It wouldn’t make sense to calculate / simulate sth unless there is an observer and thats exactly what we see, right? Interesting… Suddenly even quantum mechanics sounds reasonable 🙂

    • Husky

      What do you think, is the best argument that proves there is a creator beyond any doubt? I have a really hard time “believing” just like that but i am really interested in your point of view – maybe there is sth i havent looked at yet – greetings

      • That fact that you think that you should be able to “believe” and understand the “why” of creation without a doubt is a certain proof in itself. We had nothing to do with our existence, yet we believe we should have. Think about that.

        • Husky

          I don’t understand your point – i didnt say i wanna know “why” there was creation? I wanted to know if there is something that could make somebody like me (who has a hard time believing in a creator) come to the conclusion that there actually is one.

          I have never in my life experienced anything that could not be explained by conventional means – but i am also only 33 maybe thats gonna change at some point

    • Monty

      The whole “there is a creator” thing just shifts the basic problem. Because how did this creator come to the/his world?

      • Brokeeper

        We are bound by His creation of space and time. He is not. It’s like a two-deminsional being trying to understand three dimensional space. God sees (knows) it all at once.

        • Monty

          Yeah sure. Why not. Let’s pretend GOD knows and sees all at once. Still there is no answer where GOD comes from or how it was created.

          • Brokeeper

            Good luck with that. 😊

          • Fibber McGourlic

            Zeus created the universe. Can’t you read?

          • Fibber McGourlic

            In case you don’t exactly know who Zeus is, he’s married to Hera. He’s not faithful to her, however. He has 17 consorts which he keeps on a private God island in the Aegean Sea.

          • Brokeeper

            Oh yeah, the Cat-in-the-Hat dude.

          • Fibber McGourlic

            That’s his doppelganger.

  • Axil Axil

    My theory of the LENR reaction is based on the modification of the Theda parameter of the color gluons by anisotropic magnetic field lines. The Theda parameter with a near zero value keeps hadrons from falling apart. It has been known that color gluon state changes will produce matter/ antimatter asymmetry.

    BaBar Experiment Confirms Time Asymmetry

    Time asymmetry state change only happens during particle decay. During particle decay is when matter overwhelms the production of antimatter.
    The LENR reaction requires that time asymmetry produces particle decay thought the magnetic modification of the Theda parameter.

    • Zephir

      A) It’s off-topic to current subject and B) in your theories the LENR is caused by myriads of another mechanisms already: plasmons, tachyons, muons, dense hydrogen and whatever else stuff which you just read on the internet. C) Your theory provides no way how to verify it. You don’t understand cold fusion no more than any other visitor of this forum here.

      • Axil Axil

        I do admit that sometimes I do not have the ability to express such complex ideas in a simple way so that the unsophisticated minds of those among us with humble abilities can understand.

        You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

        LENR is not fusion.

        • Zephir

          This has nothing to do with complexity, but with off-topic nature of subject

  • Bob Greenyer

    Is it a manifestation of the universal consciousness, what a Christian might call the ‘Holy Spirit’?

    If so, then our own thoughts as conscious beings may play a role in outcomes, so, we may need to be careful what we wish for. Conversely, if we really want something, we must do all we can to focus it into reality rather than relying on the notion of fate.

    • georgehants

      Morning Bob, you may be interested in this site that gives a monthly e-mail report on the current thinking and scientific work on the subject.
      Take no notice of the usual Google corruption trying to hide such work.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Looks interesting thanks.

        The current article looks spot on, it is making a comment about how some people spend hours sitting/kneeling etc. praying for god to help those in need, when, actually, they could spend that same time … helping those in need!

        At Christmas, I like to give my family a contract, stating that I will work 1 twelve hour day doing whatever they want (as long as I am fed/watered) – it helps to ensure that at least 1 day in they year I can do something that really matters and spend quality time with those closest to me.

        I do get some sh**ty jobs though!

        • Axil Axil


          In the recent past, you have had access to active LENR fuel prepared by sucessful LENR reactor builders. I assume that you still have or can get access to active LENR fuel prepared by ECCO or me356. Do you beleive that it might be revealing to test a few grains of that fuel for charged subatomic particle production by placing the fuel in a cloud chamber?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – might be worth a try with the ECCO fuel I have, it might still be a little active though it is a few months now. The challenge is I don’t want to move it until the photographer can develop the plate – and then there is the matter of no cloud chamber (of course I know there are several ways to build one affordably).

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • nietsnie

      Thanks for that!

  • Brokeeper

    God has a great sense of humor.

    • cashmemorz

      That is why some influential physicists insist that the BB be kept on. It helps their view of meshing physics with religion. If the BB goes out the window then also goes the mesh between the two. Creation is the holy grail of religion. They will hold onto it, the Big Bang, at all costs. Politics rules every field. And that is why we have Trumps and other oddities ruling the world.

  • Gerard McEk

    Let me just repeat what I said elsewhere:

    It is about time that the astro physisists reconsider the BigBang Theory (BBT).
    What is easier than to just drop the BBT in the bin? It conflicts with many more important details both on atomic- and on astro-physic level:
    – Dark Matter: Not found
    – Expansion of the visable space should slow down: not found
    – Creations of matter at the moment of the BB: Impossible (unless you accept you don’t exist).
    – Galaxies can’t exist, but they do.
    I am sure there are other issues apart of the fact that the whole idea of the BBT is absurt as such. So it is about time to reconsider this and and find a theory that fits better!

  • georgehants

    The Factual and scientific position is that only my own consciousness is beyond dispute.
    There is no proof that you or anything else exists in any reality.
    If you exist outside of my consciousness then you are in the same position..
    We all play the game based on our own beliefs and feelings, we know that nothing material is in any way as it seems from science in my reality.
    Everything is wide open if we are a group of consciousnesses trying to find some common ground in this proven non-materialistic existence.

    Science does not know.

    • orsobubu

      George, I think if you study Lenin’ Materialism and Empiriocriticism you could change your mind about this.

      • georgehants

        orsobubu, one cannot change one’s mind about indisputable logical Facts such as I have stated above until some over-riding new Fact appears, one must keep an open-mind for such possibilities always.
        No opinion from anybody will ever change Facts and that is a Fact.
        Now we have to take into consideration my new post above showing that our consciousness can change our reality, so the floor is wide open, not for opinion but more Research to determine more (temporary) Facts.

    • Chapman

      Nice try George, but consider this:

      If only YOUR OWN consciousness exists, then WHY do you RAIL against everything else in the universe?

      I do not mean to beat up on you for your pessimism and general bellicosity, but you are without doubt the most profoundly “discontented” person I have ever encountered, and if yours IS the only real consciousness in existence then it logically follows that all the evils that you see in your dark little universe are actually suppressed constructs of your own inner self!

      If what you say is TRUE, George, then you truly ARE your own worst enemy, as you yourself are ultimately the fundamental source of all your own personal torments and exaggerated despair. It means that YOU are what is wrong with the world, and you should take yourself off into a corner somewhere and give yourself a “good talking to” and maybe a little bare knuckle attitude adjustment!

      And if what you say is TRUE, George, then that means that you created ME, and quite frankly, that’s just twisted George! Because we all KNOW my opinion of you…so what exactly does that say about YOU, as My Creator, if my thoughts are mere reflections of your own imagination???

      • georgehants

        Chapman, as I only ever talk pure logic and Facts on page, or mark plainly any rare opinions I may give, your observation is perfectly correct, My consciousness, no matter if it is purely self-created or it has a higher intelligence that introduces challenges for some higher purpose, is entirely mine, to react in the way I decide is right for me.
        If you and other consciousnesses exist then they have their own choices of how to face up to those challenges.
        We would all make-up our own minds what actions we choose to take or ignore, that would come under the definition of personality, I think.

    • cashmemorz

      My latest theory of consciousness. Yes, we feel something like… But it only seems important as some kind of high ranking feeling. It feels important because it is subjective and an ego building thing. Without our egotisticsal demand that it be important it is not important. It just is. When one stops making a big thing out of itself one begins to see it for what it really is; neurons firing in a large number. This demands explanation as to one’s self sensation. Why do I feel like something…? Stop that inventory list of explanations and the feeling is just a painless response to stimulation. Is why we evolved to have a brain that has no sensation of itself or pain or tactility, only consciousness, vivid thoughts, dreams. A dream machine sensing itself from the inside. See where that argument is going?

  • Zephir

    First of all, the Big Bang did never happen, in AWT (based on dense aether model) the red shift is the result of the scattering of light with vacuum fluctuations. The asymmetry exists for lightweight particles only – neutrinos and scalar waves, which form dark matter. The article linked provides one of the ways, how to understand it.

  • Zephir

    It’s actually a correct Dirac based explanation, but the counter-intuitive concept of motion through time should be replaced by physical motion across gravitational gradient. The normal matter condensed, while the antimatter evaporated. In dense aether model the antimatter tends to repel mutually (despite that they’re still attracted to normal matter) – so that it’s clouds did remain diluted and still observable as a streaks of dark matter. This behavior did evade the attention, because we didn’t produce enough of dark matter for to study its gravitational charge.

    Believe it or not, but this behavior has an exact analogy in behavior of cold fusion researchers. These researchers represent a sort of antimatter for current establishment (which has cohesive behavior), but they tend to compete each other and guard their know-how, so that they remain in diaspora until their concentration will not exceed a critical density.

  • Zephir

    You’re right, but we should put the question, what the motion across time actually means. In dense aether model this concept has a tangible meaning with respect to entropic time arrow. I can agree that during formation of particle-antiparticle pairs this behavior is usually masked by their charge. The asymmetry which Dirac did talk about manifest only by gravitomagnetic charge and it can be effectively observed only for particles without electromagnetic charge like the neutrinos.

  • georgehants

    New discovery regarding Maxwell’s equations, the bases of science are falling apart all around us, not just guesses like the big bang.
    Physicists discover hidden aspects of electrodynamics

    • Gerard McEk

      Again a nail in the coffin of the BigBangTheory!

      My thoughts of what this background radiation that can be seen when looking into (far) space:
      All light (and EM radiation) is bent (as Einstein says) by individual (star-) masses and (I assume) the collective mass in our universe. Therefore it will not exit our universe, but ultimately and most likely end in one of the black holes that belong to our universe, or be absorbed somewhere. So what do you see when looking into the far end of the universe?:
      – Light that can just escape at the outer limits of the black holes
      – Stars falling into the black holes, having speeds near to the light speed.
      In my view this explaines better what we see than the BBT, but it’s just my thought about this.

  • Brokeeper

    Were did the first creator come from? 😆

    • Ciaranjay

      It’s turtles all the way down.

      • TVulgaris

        A recursive loop can still be considered a unit.
        Not as funny, or as much fun, though…

  • Billy Jackson

    /facepalm … that would suggest that your model/theory is wrong … not that we should not exist. I swear somewhere around the point where they actually get that PhD .. it seems common sense just goes right out the window.

    • TVulgaris

      The distinction is moot if this universe is a simulation, this is as possible (and possibly more probable) than not, according to data from as far as a decade back.
      Of course, time, being delusory, is meaningless here except as a convenient handle into the hard-code.

  • Axil Axil

    The behavior of the color gluons is not a religious matter. But that behavior has important implications in both LENR and the birth of matter in the universe.

    This “Universe Should Not Exist” theory is based only on the stability of the proton. But that stability may not have mattered when the universe was first forming out of quark soup. Other subatomic particles have a preference for decay into matter over antimatter. For example, the kaon and the B meson both decay more often into matter than antimatter.

    Current experiments that form quark soup in particle colliders show that kaons and other mesons form before protons do. So it is reasonable to expect that meson decay would have formed all the matter that currently exists in the universe. Only after hundreds of thousands of years of cooling would those mesons disappear and protons, neutrons, and electrons condense into highly stable nuclear matter.

    When there are multiple steps involved in a condinsation process, it is important to consider what steps come first and what steps come last. For example, steam does not condense directly into ice. As steam cools, it changes state into water, then into ice.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „Other subatomic particles have a preference for decay into matter over antimatter. For example, the kaon and the B meson both decay more often into matter than antimatter.”

      Yes – although there are corresponding anti-mesons, which would probably (?) show the opposite behaviour. Anyway, mesons are a case of interest, since they contain both a quark and an antiquark, and therefore don not fit well into the common scheme of regular- vs. antimatter.

      We should also take into consideration that after annihilation the resulting photons produced new massive particles which underwent further annihilation, and so on (see ). There might have been many occasions to break symmetry in this very complex process.

  • sam

    Big Bang Machine.

  • Michael W Wolf

    the physical world cannot be infinite. See double slit experiment, delayed decision. infinity is anti material. matter and time does not exist there.

  • cashmemorz

    Oscillating in infinite time as per Randell Mills GUT-CP explains this particular universe’s existance as a continuous process which thereby has no need for symmetry breaking at some special point in time. The anti-protons could still exist just outside and forever out of communication with the borders of this universe if they have to exist as part of a symmetry. Just not a homogeneous mix of protons and anti-protons. Mills finds corroboration in the data the BICEPS experiment found, starting in 2012. Same data was predicted by Mills GUT-CP in 1988. Is that why CEO of MJT Technologies LLC introduced Mills as a brilliant poly-math in Mills first university lecture .

    A lecture by Dr.
    Mills at Fresno State U Smittcamp Honors College
    Colloquium. Introduced by Eric Tilton:

    Eric Tilton(profile from LinkedIn)

    and CEO

    Name MJT Technologies LLC

    Employed Sep 2013 – Present

    Duration 4 yrs 1 mo

    Clovis, CA

    MJT Technologies is an engineering, design, and consulting
    services company, blended with a business and product development
    arm. We also mentor and work with a software startup with six
    founders. The younger entrepreneurs keep us stimulated, challenged,
    and up on all the latest cool trends.

    Currently, MJT
    Technologies is also involved in application-specific business
    development for Brilliant Light Power SunCells(R), revolutionary new
    primary power sources. We focus on the use of SunCells(R) in
    powering: small, medium and large SWRO facilities (Sea Water Reverse
    Osmosis); Industrial RO for high-purity water needs; Agricultural
    ground water and runoff treatment; and high volume pumping. We also
    have several Information Technology Services consulting clients. “

  • Axil Axil
    • georgehants

      Axil, the simple important answer is we do not know, therefore any denial of such a possibility is scientifically incompetence, thank goodness there are competent people around the World taking the only logical path, Research the subject.
      Science does not know.

    • Zephir

      Define “supernatural”. Are the authors trying to pretend, that standard BigBang “explanation” of Universe “sudden formation” from “nothingness” is more “natural” or even “physical”?

      • Axil Axil

        It is natural for human nature to explain things that are not understood by assigning supernatural causes to those things.

        • Zephir

          For human nature many bad things are natural: stealing, murdering, inventing stuffs etc. Should we apologize or even apologetize such an attitude just because of it?

      • TVulgaris

        “Previously unexplainable (not just unexplained) by contemporary analytical systems”.
        Same as magic, in the Clarke-ian sense (albeit phrased differently)..

  • georgehants

    Experiment proving that consciousness influences reality, but science and many others still cannot get their heads around Facts.
    27th Oct 2017
    Reflecting light off satellite backs up Wheeler’s quantum theory thought experiment
    The experiment consisted of shooting a laser beam at a beam splitter,
    which aimed the beam at a satellite traveling in low Earth orbit, which
    reflected it back to Earth. But as the light traveled back to Earth, the
    researchers had time to make a choice whether or not to activate a
    second beam splitter as the light was en route. Thus, they could test
    whether the light was able to sense what they were doing and respond
    accordingly. The team reports that the light behaved just as Wheeler had
    predicted—demonstrating either particle-like or wave-like behavior,
    depending on the behavior of those studying it.

  • georgehants

    Russian scientists find flaws in popular theories of gravity
    October 27, 2017
    Using a model of black holes, scientists from the Ural Federal university (UrFU, Yekaterinburg)
    determined that a popular theory of gravity that seemed to work
    perfectly at the cosmological level (a subclass of Horndeski theory)
    does not apply in the real world. They have published their results in Classical and Quantum Gravity.
    Read more at:

    • Axil Axil

      There is a good chance that LENR is produced by high pressure chemistry, such as metalized hydrogen. This form of hydrogen could be producing energy inside of stars and planets. The LENR reaction could also produce an ash product called the axion, a very light particle and a candidate for dark matter. Over time, the LENR reaction might be pumping out axions from stars and planets as protons and neutrons decay under the influence of metallic hydrogen.

      The axion is a scalar particle that forms a Bose condensate that fills galaxies and acts as dark matter. This scalar particle modifies general relativity in a way described by Horndeski theories. These theories change general relativity by adding a scalar field to its equations. These theories explain dark matter and dark energy.
      It seems to me that it is important for science to understand where axions are coming from, namely LENR, so that science can characterize the nature of this LENR ash particle and how LENR has affected the universe in the past and how LENR will affect the universe into the future.

      • Zephir

        Axions don’t exist (in similar way like most of inventions of mainstream physics of recent era) but scalar waves of Nicola Tesla. It’s true that these concepts converge mutually (at least for laymen) being both very lightweight elements – but scalar waves come in many forms (magnetic vortices, anapoles, high and low spin photons), as they don’t form a well defined particles in common sense. They’re merely a solitons (vortex rings) longitudinal waves of vacuum. The LENR reactions don’t “pump axions out of stars”, but they’re catalyzed with scalar waves (dark matter) at surrounding planets. For example I presume, that the current period of global warming is catalyzed by dark matter clouds pervading the solar system and affecting also some physical constants.

      • f sedei

        So, LENR occurs naturally in the universe. Does it then occur naturally on earth? That is a very big unanswered question that will require serious research.

    • Zephir

      Now, the authors are planning to subject the newly proposed models to standard tests to check their adequacy at the cosmological and astrophysical scale.

      These tests arrived soon: New gravitational wave detection with optical counterpart rules out
      some dark matter alternatives
      . This does not affect all types of modified gravity, but it does affect Bekenstein’s TeVeS and Moffat’s Scalar-Vector-Tensor theory. And of course also
      2nd order scalar-tensor Horndeski theory.

  • sam
  • Axil Axil

    I posted a response to a backreaction post as follows:

    New gravitational wave detection with optical counterpart rules out some dark matter alternatives

    Sibel Boran, Shantanu Desai, Emre Kahya, Richard Woodard
    arXiv:1710.06168 [astro-ph.HE]

    Prof. Pierre Sikivie: “It has long been known that axions produced by vacuum realignment during the QCD phase transition in the early universe form a cold degenerate Bose gas and are a candidate for the dark matter. More recently it was found that dark matter axions thermalize through their gravitational self-interactions and form a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). On time scales long compared to their rethermalization time scale, almost all the axions go to the lowest energy state available to them. In this behaviour they differ from the other dark matter candidates. Axions accreting onto a galactic halo fall in with net overall rotation because almost all go to the lowest energy available state for given angular momentum. In contrast, the other proposed forms of dark matter accrete onto galactic halos with an irrotational velocity field. The inner caustics are different in the two cases. I’ll argue that the dark matter is axions because there is observational evidence for the type of inner caustic produced by, and only by, an axion BEC.”

    There is dark matter theory that shows evidence of BEC formation on the galactic scale. If you need to get to superfluidity, the axion BEC is what is required.

    Also related to Scalar field dark matter

    “The dark matter can be modeled as a scalar field using two fitted parameters, mass and self-interaction. In this picture the dark matter consists of an ultralight particle with a mass of O(10e−22) eV when there is no self-interaction. If there is a self-interaction a wider mass range is allowed. The uncertainty in position of a particle is larger than its Compton wavelength, and for some reasonable estimates of particle mass and density of dark matter there is no point talking about the individual particle’s position and momentum. The dark matter is more like a wave than a particle, and the galactic halos are giant systems of condensed bose liquid, possibly superfluid. The dark matter can be described as a Bose–Einstein condensate of the ultralight quanta of the field and as boson stars. The enormous Compton wavelength of these particles prevents structure formation on small subgalactic scales, which is a major problem in traditional cold dark matter models.

    This dark matter model is also known as BEC dark matter or wave dark matter. Fuzzy dark matter and ultra-light axion are examples of scalar field dark matter.”

    An axion BEC on the galactic scale meets the need for the dark matter particle to produce superfluid effects, and in certain approximations, behaves like modified gravity.

    • Zephir

      No need to flood all internet forums with OT copy&pastemaniac posts…

      • Axil Axil

        Are you auditioning for a job as a website moderator?

        • Zephir

          Nope, I’m just trying to provide some feedback. Feedback is healthy, don’t you think? If I would be a website moderator, you would recognize it soon, as all off topic comments would be moved to their dedicated trash thread.

  • Zephir

    Compare also ALPHA experiment shows antihydrogen charge is neutral. The simplest possible explanation of the above controversy is as follows: the physicists believe, that the matter formation during Big Bang is the result of minute asymmetry between matter and antimatter behavior – but they did find none in protons and antiprotons spectra. Even if we neglect the fact, that no Big Bang did ever happen, then the matter/antimatter asymmetry is apparent during similar events at small scale, like the explosions of supernovas. So that the paradox will remain independently of cosmological model used.

    The dense aether model explanation is, the fluctuations of vacuum are really principally asymmetric so that density fluctuations behave like bubbles filled by longitudinal scalar waves of vacuum or like more dense blobs filled by virtual photons. But these vacuum fluctuations are very short-living and subtle and the observable particles are already complex than that: they’re composed of alternating layers of scalar and transverse waves like the onions. Even the simplest neutrino particles are already formed by vortex rings, the center of which is dominated by scalar waves and surface is formed by transverse one.

    The matter and antimatter particles just have the order of these layers reversed, which is why they explode in direct contact. But the larger and heavier the particles are (like the composite protons), the more this asymmetry gets masked. Illustratively speaking, the zebras are indistinguishable each other, despite half of them begins with white stripe and second one with black stripe.

    • Axil Axil

      There is a bit of word salad here inspired by incorrect thinking.

      Learn more about virtual particles.

      “A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.”

      • Zephir

        It doesn’t disprove my point but it illustrates it: the virtual particles may have some matter-antimatter symmetry developed, but the real ones not, being regular and symmetric.

  • georgehants

    orsobubu, Ha you need to go back much further to the ancient Greeks and in more modern times Bishop Berkeley is a good example.
    I am surprised you are “shocked” as I have pointed out above, I never put on page anything but indisputable logic or Facts and always mark any “opinions” that I may give, be that on people are suffering in this World unnecessarily (in our case due to the unnecessary delay of Rossi’s Cold Fusion, showing the completely idiotic system that we have) we have no idea if there is a creator, We have no idea if genuine extraterrestrial UFO’s are A Fact etc. etc.
    It is laughable to hear supposedly educated scientific clowns like Dawkins and Hawkins giving ridiculous opinions regarding a lack of creator based on nothing but opinion.
    Scientists who consider themselves qualified and competent stating that UFO’s are impossible etc. etc.
    Science does not know.
    Such people do not seem to realise the complete fools they are making of themselves and equal fools are actually taken in by such tripe.

  • attaboy

    I really don’t understand the Guth Inflation theory and much of cosmology in general (I am an organic chemist), but I would think that it would have us think that both matter and anti matter formed uniformly the same and in all directions as the universe expanded. But what it that’s not true and in reality there are vast regions in the universe made up of one or the other. So depending upon where you are in the universe the reality is made up of one or the other. But the net result in the universe overall would be exact compensation for matter by anti matter. We just happen to live in a matter based reality.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It’s a possibility that has been seriously looked at by, for example, one of my colleagues. Between matter and antimatter regions there should be gamma emitting walls. One effect is that radiation pressure of the gammas tends to push particles out of the annihilation zone. Nevertheless, gammas are produced. But those gammas are not seen.

  • Omega Z

    Another dimension composed of anti-matter identical to ours in every detail.

    A Zero point energy device interconnects the 2 dimensions, thus Zero point energy. When the device connects at the right x,y,z points, you have what is called spontaneous human combustion.

    Just Kidding. Or Am I ???

  • HAL9000

    What would an antimatter universe look like? Would black holes become white holes?

    • Omega Z

      That’s a gray area…

      • HAL9000

        Excellent, 10 points to Gryffindor!