One reason given for this is that soon after the big bang, a slight asymmetry developed between matter and antimatter.

However no one has be able to give define a physical mechanism that could be responsible for this even though physicists suspect it may be due to a charge-parity (CP) violation which would have allowed normal matter to prevail over antimatter.
Yet Einstein’s may have given us a clue as to what could cause this violation  when he defined the quantity of mass in a given volume of space-time in terms of a displacement or curvature in it.

However it is easier to understand why if one reformulates his space-time theories in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including  that associated with matter and antimatter can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This as mentioned earlier this gives one the ability to understand the mechanism responsible for the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the early universe because it provides a “central line” in three-dimensional space which can be used to compare the properties of matter and antimatter on different sides of it with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words it allows one define the asymmetry between the energy/mass in a matter / antimatter system as being the result of a different property of oppositely directed displacements in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because one can define the energy/mass associated with the matter component of a particle in terms of  downward directed curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while defining those of an anti-particle in terms of a upwardly directed curvature with respect a “central line” in three-dimensional space.

As was mentioned earlier the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007, one can derive the quantity of energy/mass in a system in terms of the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three- dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Therefore, the total energy of a particle / anti-particle system would be equal to the sum of their relative displacements.

This means one can define particle antiparticle annihilation in terms of the “upward” directed curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold associated with an antiparticle “filling in” the equal but oppositely directed “downward” curvature associated with a particle while defining the energy released when they do so in terms of the sum of their oppositely directed curvatures.

However, this also provides an explanation of the why there is more matter than antimatter in there universe

As was mentioned earlier, one can derive the energy/mass of a particle in terms of a “downward” directed displacement in that “surface” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while the energy/mass of an antiparticle in terms of an “upward” directed one in that same surface. 

But this indicates on average it would require less energy to form a particle than an antiparticle for the same reason that it takes less energy to fill a bucket with water by pushing it down below the waters surface than it does by lifting the water into a bucket that is above its surface because the one above the surface is at a higher gravitational potential’  

Therefore, there would be some energy left over if an equal number of particles and antiparticles were annihilated.  This left over energy is responsible of energy/mass of particles presently in the universe.

Additionally it defines in terms of a physical mechanism why there may be a charge-parity (CP) violation in matter and antimatter formation because it shows that even though the charges associated with matter and anti matter particles are equal and opposite their combined energy is not.

However, the reason this left over energy/mass takes the form of a particle and not an anti-particle is because the relative properties of energy/mass means it can be defined in terms of a reference frame that would result in it being called particle instead of an antiparticle.

This defines the mechanism in terms of the geometry of four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions for the asymmetry between particles and antiparticles and why there should be more particles than antiparticles left over after the big bang even though they were produced in equal numbers.

It should be remember that Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose whether to describe the properties of mass in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post Why is there more matter than antimatter appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example, there are some who believe the best way is to observe the environment and then extrapolate those observations to the unobservable.

Isaac Newton used this approach to derive the law of gravity by making the assumption that mass generates an attractive gravitational force on all objects based on physical observations he made on the earth.  The universality of its existence is based on the fact that one can determine the motion of all objects in the universe by assuming this force was responsible for it.

However, we cannot “see” a gravitational force.  How then can we be sure that it really exists?

The answer is we cannot.  We can only assume it does based on the fact it allows us to predict and explain the motion of objects that at the time were unobservable.

For example the position of Neptune was mathematically predicted using Newton’s concept of gravity before it was directly observed.

However, there are some who take the opposite approach.

Quantum mechanics assumes one can define the laws of nature only in terms of mathematics and not the environment that surrounds them.

For example it defines the position of a particle by mathematically defining their probability distribution but says nothing about how it got there.   

This differs from the Newtonian method in that it defines the solution to where an object was in terms of how it got there whereas quantum mechanics as motioned earlier defines it only in terms of where it is.

Both of these methods are valid because they give scientists the ability to make accurate predictions of future events.

However physics as the name implies is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics. Therefore, physicists should look to their observable properties as the primary vehicle to guide their understanding instead of mathematics.

The trouble with modern physics is that many have got lazy in their pursuit of reality.  Instead of taking the time and effort to observe it many scientists make a few observations and turn to mathematics not observations of the environment they occupy to interconnect them.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 can understand the quantum properties energy/mass by extrapolating the observations of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

This shows that one can contrary to what physicists tell us that one can understand why energy/mass is quantized by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension environment to the quantum mechanical world.

However this is not the only example because as we have shown throughout this blog there are many more. 

For example both the article “Is Quantum Mechanics a Fundamental or emergent property of space-time?” shows how one can integrate quantum mechanics with the classical properties of space-time and the article “The “reality” of the Higgs field“ explains why it is responsible for mass by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension world to their enviroments.

As mentioned earlier physics is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics.  Therefore, the primary criteria for the acceptance or rejection of a theory should not be mathematical but observational.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The trouble with physics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.