Anti-Matter is real!
- Thread starter Sector 7
- Start date
We know that antimatter is negatively charged matter; but we don't know what that means exactly. Is antimatter actually normal matter moving backward in time? If we assume that time doesn't actually "exist" as we see it, and is instead something that we imagine as a way of explaining our orientation in the universe, then perhaps it is.
That was that anti-time stuff from "All Good Things..." wasn't it?
In that instance, though, I think it was just one particular EVENT that was rolling backwards through time, growing bigger in the past than it was in the future.
Real antimatter might not be so exotic as that fictional story, though, but we're just at the cusp of really learning about it...
Yeah, if somehow anti-matter went the opposite direction of the universe's "arrow of time," you wouldn't see it explode--you would see it unexplode.
Actually, we experimentally detected anti-matter since at least the 50s, and particle accelerators produced (extremely small quantities of) anti-matter since the 60s (specifically, anti-protons). The great achievement of CERN this week was to confine anti-atoms, which are electrically neutral and thus much more difficult to trap than charged anti-matter (which only needs a magnetic trap).
Well, anti-matter have electrical charge opposite to normal matter, not just negative (the positron, or anti-electron, for example, has positive charge; the anti-neutron has charge 0 just like the neutron, but it is composed by anti-quarks which have opposite charge than quarks).
Uh, I don't think so. It "moves in time" exactly like matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
For those interested in delving a little further into such things, here's a corrospondence on Tom Bearden's website that might be helpful?
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042607.htm
And for the inevitable further questions this link raises here's two more, for further research and edification?
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bearden/fd/contents.htm#menu
Lotta stuff there, so it might take awhile to digest it properly?
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042607.htm
And for the inevitable further questions this link raises here's two more, for further research and edification?
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bearden/fd/contents.htm#menu
Lotta stuff there, so it might take awhile to digest it properly?
iguana tonante said:
In a very general way, I think that we tend to view time as an element, when in reality it is only the witnessed reaction of elements. Time is like money in your bank account. You use your debit card, and in your mind, you spent capital; but in reality, the capital doesn't necessarily exist in any real way. It is imagined, a form of rational law as opposed to physical law. Essentially, time may not be the "operating system" in which matter interacts, but instead might be simply our terminology used in reference to the interface of matter.
[QUOTE="Antimatter", by Frank Close]
"For bulk matter, including living things, time is an illusion involving the laws of chance as applied to large numbers of atoms. Whereas the withering of flowers, our bodies growing older, eggs breaking and not spontaneously reassembling, and a general sense of order turning to disorder each give an intuitive sense of the passage of time, the very concept is far from obvious...
...There is a manifest direction to time even though the basic equations don't care which way you run the clock. The individual atoms may care naught for time's arrow, but their mutual interactions, which shift them around, make a collection of atoms likely to become disordered. This is because there are more options available: there is only one way the atoms make a particular egg, whereas there are countless ways its smashed pieces can fall."
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I really get the jist of what he was trying to say there, but as I perceive it, what we may assume is that the universe is sort of a self-contained circular algorithm, and in such case, matter moving forward in time is also moving backward in time on the "opposite side of the circle".
If we were to see that "other side", it would appear to be the timeline of the future on its way into the past as we know it. Such a notion would suggest that we (we, being defined as the sum of the universe) are, in fact, re-living our past over and over again, simply making modifications to the old timeline as it comes around. It might be likable to editing a movie reel.
I'm still not sure what you mean by that. Time, as physics sees it, is a dimension of the space-time continuum, linked to the other dimensions through the speed of light. The psychological "sense of time" is a different topic.
What he's describing is simply entropy (the thermodynamic property of a system related its intrinsic disorder) and its relation to the so-called arrow of time.
The nature of time from a physicist's point of view is an interesting topic indeed, but I'm afraid what you say is more philosophy and science-fiction than physics.
When I saw this thread title, my first thought was, "What does Senator Vreenak think?" You can't get too much past him.
[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to the boss the next time you’re late for work.
Scientist who study this field have good knowledge of it, the reason why we don't see much of it is because it would cost more money to create than you could ever make off the product that comes to be. Scientist also know that it is very dangerous to control when you don't have to proper equipment. When we get further into technology, get fusion generators working and other clean but powerful energy generators. You could very well see more anti-matter being made and studied.
Well, considering there was a question in my mind as to whether or not anyone might find it helpful, or useful for further research and edification, or whether or not it might take awhile to digest it properly, I think question marks are appropriate.
Granted, in retrospect, I probably could have worded it a bit more properly, but who on these boards hasn't been less than eloquent, or suffered a typo ot two from time to time??? Everybody but you, it seems.
Similar threads
