Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm- shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. Home · A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. ABSTRACT: The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been asked for millenia by people who speculate on the need for.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||25.59 MB|
|PDF File Size:||14.34 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
print the lectures in book form, and so notified our readers of this decision Practical electricity.. with questions a The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. A universe from nothing: why there is something rather than nothing/ Lawrence M. Krauss ; with an afterword by Richard Dawkins, p. cm. Includes index. 1. PDF | On May 23, , Matti Pitkanen and others published Universe from Nothing.
Posted on Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science arrondissement, apparently xx to voyage to the world, in this new ne, that the pas. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science ne, apparently means to voyage to the xx, in this new voyage, that the laws. Krauss, has been lauded to the skies by fellow atheists such as A. Krauss, initially published on Mi 10, by Voyage Press. Krauss, has been lauded to the pas by mi atheists such as A.
Adamson University. Lawrence M.
Krauss - A Universe from Nothing. As it turns out, everything has a lot to do with nothing-and nothing to do with God. This is a brilliant and disarming book. A fascinating read. With his characteristic verve, and using many clever devices, he's made that remarkable story remarkably accessible.
The climax is a bold scientific answer to the great question of existence: When Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, at its heart was the possibility that space could curve in the presence of matter or energy.
This theoretical idea became more than mere speculation in when two expeditions observed starlight curving around the Sun during a solar eclipse in precisely the degree to which Einstein had predicted should happen if the presence of the Sun curved the space around it.
Einstein almost instantly became famous and a household name. Now, if space is potentially curved, then the geometry of our whole universe suddenly becomes a lot more interesting. Depending upon the total amount of matter in our universe, it could exist in one of three different types of geometries, so-called open, closed, or flat.
It is hard to envisage what a curved three-dimensional space might actually look like. Since we are three-dimensional beings, we can no more easily intuitively picture a curved three- dimensional space than the two-dimensional beings in the famous book Flatland could imagine what their world would look like to a three-dimensional observer if it were curved like the surface of a sphere.
Moreover, if the curvature is very small, then it is hard to imagine how one might actually detect it in everyday life, just as, during the Middle Ages at least, many people felt the Earth must be flat because from their perspective it looked flat.
Curved three-dimensional universes are difficult to picture — a closed universe is like a three-dimensional sphere, which sounds pretty intimidating — but some aspects are easy to describe. If you looked far enough in one direction in a closed universe, you would see the back of your head.
While these exotic geometries may seem amusing or impressive to talk about, operationally there is a much more important consequence of their existence.
General relativity tells us unambiguously that a closed universe whose energy density is dominated by matter like stars and galaxies, and even more exotic dark matter, must one day recollapse in a process like the reverse of a Big Bang — a Big Crunch, if you will. An open universe will continue to expand forever at a finite rate, and a flat universe is just at the boundary, slowing down, but never quite stopping.
Determining the amount of dark matter, and thus the total density of mass in the universe, therefore promised to reveal the answer to the age-old question at least as old as T.
Eliot anyway: Will the universe end with a bang or a whimper? The saga of determining the total abundance of dark matter goes back at least a half century, and one could write a whole book about it, which in fact I have already done, in my book Quintessence.
However, in this case, as I shall now demonstrate with both words and then a picture , it is true that a single picture is worth at least a thousand or perhaps a hundred thousand words.
The largest gravitationally bound objects in the universe are called superclusters of galaxies. Such objects can contain thousands of individual galaxies or more and can stretch across tens of millions of light-years. Most galaxies exist in such superclusters, and indeed our own galaxy is located within the Virgo supercluster of galaxies, whose center is almost 60 million light-years away from us.
Since superclusters are so large and so massive, basically anything that falls into anything will fall into clusters. Then, using the equations of general relativity, we could determine whether there is enough matter to close the universe or not. So far so good, but how can we weigh objects that are tens of millions of light-years across? Use gravity. Mandl paid me a visit and asked me to publish the results of a little calculation, which I had made at his request.
This note complies with his wish. So it is perhaps not that surprising as was recently discovered that in , well before Einstein had in fact even completed his general relativity theory, he had performed calculations — as he tried to find some observable phenomenon that would convince astronomers to test his ideas — that were essentially identical to those he published in at the request of Mr. What Einstein did recognize on both occasions is that the bending of light in a gravitational field could mean that, if a bright object was located well behind an intervening distribution of mass, light rays going out in various directions could bend around the intervening distribution and converge again, just as they do when they traverse a normal lens, producing either a magnification of the original object or the production of numerous image copies of the original object, some of which might be distorted see figure below.
When he calculated the predicted effects for lensing of a distant star by an intervening star in the foreground, the effect was so small that it appeared absolutely unmeasurable, which led him to make the remark mentioned above — that it was unlikely that such a phenomenon could ever be observed.
As a result, Einstein figured that his paper had little practical value. As he put it in his covering letter to the editor of Science at the time: It is of little value, but it makes the poor guy happy. Its usefulness came from applying it to the lensing of distant objects by much larger systems such as galaxies or even clusters of galaxies, not to the lensing of stars by stars. Zwicky was an irascible character and way ahead of his time.
He thus should properly be considered as having discovered dark matter, though at the time his inference was so remarkable that most astronomers probably felt there might be some other less exotic explanation for the result he got. He proposed three different uses for gravitational lensing: Indeed, each and every suggestion he made has come to pass, and the final one is the most significant of all.
Gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies was first observed in , and in , sixty-one years after Zwicky proposed weighing nebulae using gravitational lensing, the mass of a large cluster was determined by using gravitational lensing. In this beautiful image from the Hubble Space Telescope, a spectacular example of the multiple image of a distant galaxy located another 5 billion light-years behind the cluster can be seen as highly distorted and elongated images amidst the otherwise generally rounder galaxies.
Looking at this image provides fuel for the imagination. First, every spot in the photo is a galaxy, not a star. Each galaxy contains perhaps billion stars, along with them probably hundreds of billions of planets, and perhaps long-lost civilizations. I say long-lost because the image is 5 billion years old. The light was emitted million years before our own Sun and Earth formed. Many of the stars in the photo no longer exist, having exhausted their nuclear fuel billions of years ago.
Beyond that, the distorted images show precisely what Zwicky argued would be possible.
The large distorted images to the left of the center of the image are highly magnified and elongated versions of this distant galaxy, which otherwise would probably not be visible at all. Working backward from this image to determine the underlying mass distribution in the cluster is a complicated and complex mathematical challenge.
When the dust settled, Tyson and collaborators obtained a graphical image that displayed precisely where the mass was located in this system pictured in the original photograph: Something strange is going on in this image. The spikes in the graph represent the location of the visible galaxies in the original image, but most of the mass of the system is located between the galaxies, in a smooth, dark distribution. In fact, more than 40 times as much mass is between the galaxies as is contained in the visible matter in the system times as much mass as contained in the stars alone with the rest of visible matter in hot gas around them.
Dark matter is clearly not confined to galaxies, but also dominates the density of clusters of galaxies. Particle physicists like myself were not surprised to find that dark matter also dominates clusters. The reason was simple: Stay tuned. Whether or not the total amount of dark matter was sufficient to produce a flat universe, observations such as these obtained by gravitational lensing I remind you that gravitational lensing results from the local curvature of space around massive objects; the flatness of the universe relates to the global average curvature of space, ignoring the local ripples around massive objects and more recent observations from other areas of astronomy have confirmed that the total amount of dark matter in galaxies and clusters is far in excess of that allowed by the calculations of Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
But it fssomething! These earliest inferences of dark matter in our galaxy have spawned a whole new field of experimental physics, and I am happy to say that I have played a role in its development. Hence we can perform experiments to look for dark matter and for the new type of elementary particle or particles of which it is comprised.
The experiments are being performed in mines and tunnels deep underground. Why underground? Because on the surface of the Earth we are regularly bombarded by all manner of cosmic rays, from the Sun and from objects much farther away.
Thus, if you want to detect the effects of the very rare exceptions to this rule, dark matter particles that actually bounce off atoms of matter, you had better be prepared to detect very rare and infrequent events. Only underground are you sufficiently shielded from cosmic rays for this to be possible even in principle.
As I write this, however, an equally exciting possibility is arising. But we have many reasons to believe that, at the very high energies at which protons are smashed together in the device, conditions similar to those in the very early universe will be re-created, albeit over only microscopically small regions. In such regions the same interactions that may have first produced what are now dark matter particles during the very early universe may now produce similar particles in the laboratory!
There is thus a great race going on. Who will detect dark matter particles first: The good news is that, if either group wins the race, no one loses. We all win, by learning what the ultimate stuff of matter really is. A final, direct determination of the total amount of matter in the universe came from the beautiful inferences of gravitational lensing measurements like the one I have described combined with other observations of X-ray emissions from clusters. The results were surprising, and as I have alluded, disappointing to many of us scientists.
For when the dust had settled, literally and metaphorically, the total mass in and around galaxies and clusters was determined to be only about 30 percent of the total amount of mass needed to result in a flat universe today. Note that this is more than 40 times as much mass as can be accounted for by visible matter, which therefore makes up less than 1 percent of the mass needed to make up a flat universe.
By the early s, the holy grail of cosmology had apparently been achieved. Observations had determined that we live in an open universe, one that would therefore expand forever. Or had they? Inevitably, you have to wonder whether matter is hidden in ways that we cannot uncover. For instance, we can only probe for the existence of matter within these systems using the gravitational dynamics of visible systems like galaxies and clusters. It would be much better to measure the geometry of the whole visible universe directly.
But how can you measure the three-dimensional geometry of the whole visible universe? First, you could ask a high school student, What is the sum of the angles in a triangle? Choose the high school carefully, however You would be told degrees, because the student no doubt learned Euclidean geometry — the geometry associated with flat pieces of paper. On a curved two-dimensional surface like a globe, you can draw a triangle, the sum of whose angles is far greater than degrees.
For example, consider drawing a line along the equator, then making a right angle, going up to the North Pole, then another right angle back down to the equator, as shown below.
Three times 90 is , far greater than degrees. It turns out that this simple, two-dimensional thinking extends directly and identically to three dimensions, because the mathematicians who first proposed non-flat, or so-called non- Euclidean, geometries realized that the same possibilities could exist in three dimensions. Of course, the fact that the mountains are on the curved surface of the Earth means that the two-dimensional curvature of the surface of the Earth would have interfered with any measurement he was performing to probe for curvature in the background three-dimensional space in which the Earth is situated, which he must have known.
I assume he was planning to subtract any such contribution from his final results to see if any possible leftover curvature might be attributable to a curvature of the background space.
The first person to try to measure the curvature of space definitively was an obscure mathematician, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, who lived in remote Kazan in Russia.
Unlike Gauss, Lobachevsky was actually one of two mathematicians who had the temerity to propose in print the possibility of so-called hyberbolic curved geometries, where parallel lines could diverge.
This is a big number, but it is trivially small on cosmic scales. Unfortunately, while Lobachevsky had the right idea, he was limited by the technology of his day. One hundred and fifty years later, however, things have improved, thanks to the most important set of observations in all of cosmology: It provides another piece of direct evidence, in case any is needed, that the Big Bang really happened, because it allows us to look back directly and detect the nature of the very young, hot universe from which all the structures we see today later emerged.
The other thing is that it existed virtually under all our noses for decades, potentially observable, but was missed entirely. In fact, you may be old enough have seen its effects without realizing it, if you remember the days before cable television, when channels used to end their broadcast days in the wee morning hours and not run infomercials all night.
When they went off the air, after showing a test pattern, the screen would revert to static. About 1 percent of that static you saw on the television screen was radiation left over from the Big Bang. The origin of the cosmic microwave background radiation is relatively straightforward.
Since the universe has a finite age recall it is In principle this is not impossible, but in practice, between us and that early time lies a wall. Not a physical wall like the walls of the room in which I am writing this, but one that, to a great extent, has the same effect. I cannot see past the walls in my room because they are opaque.
They absorb light. Now, as I look out in the sky back further and further in time, I am looking at the universe as it was younger and younger, and also hotter and hotter, because it has been cooling ever since the Big Bang.
If I look back far enough, to a time when the universe was about , years old, the temperature of the universe was about 3, degrees Kelvin scale above absolute zero. At this temperature the ambient radiation was so energetic that it was able to break apart the dominant atoms in the universe, hydrogen atoms, into their separate constituents, protons and electrons.
Before this time, neutral matter did not exist. A plasma, however, can be opaque to radiation. The charged particles within the plasma absorb photons and reemit them so that radiation cannot easily pass through such a material uninterrupted. As a result, if I try to look back in time, I cannot see past the time when matter in the universe was last largely comprised of such a plasma.
Once again, it is like the walls in my room. I can see them only because electrons in atoms on the surface of the wall absorb light from the light in my study and then reemit it, and the air between me and the walls is transparent, so I can see all the way to the surface of the wall that emitted the light.
So too with the universe. After that point, the universe became largely transparent to radiation, and I can now see the radiation that was absorbed and reemitted by the electrons as matter in the universe became neutral. And that is precisely the signal that the two hapless scientists found in New Jersey in , and for whose discovery they were later awarded the Nobel Prize. Actually a second Nobel Prize was given more recently for observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and for good reason.
If we could take a photo of the surface of the last scattering surface, we would get a picture of the neonatal universe a mere , years into its existence. We could see all the structures that would one day collapse to form galaxies, stars, planets, aliens, and all the rest. Most important, these structures would have been unaffected by all the subsequent dynamical evolution that can obscure the underlying nature and origin of the first tiny primordial perturbations in matter and energy which were presumably created by exotic processes in the earliest moments of the Big Bang.
Most important for our purpose, however, on this surface there would be a characteristic scale, which is imprinted by nothing other than time itself. One can understand this as follows: If one considers a distance spanning about 1 degree on the last scattering surface as seen by an observer on Earth, this would correspond to a distance on that surface of about , light-years.
Now, since the last scattering surface reflects a time when the universe itself was about , years old, and since Einstein tells us that no information can travel through space faster than the speed of light, this means that no signal from one location could travel across this surface at that time by more than about , light- years.
Now consider a lump of matter smaller than , light- years across. Such a lump will have begun to collapse due to its own gravity. Gravity, which itself propagates at the speed of light, cannot have traveled across the full length of the lump.
So just as Wile E. Coyote runs straight off a cliff and hangs suspended in midair in the Road Runner cartoons, the lump will just sit there, waiting to collapse when the universe becomes old enough for it to know what it is supposed to do! This singles out a special triangle, with one side , light- years across, a known distance away from us, determined by the distance between us and the last scattering surface, as shown below: If we are able to obtain an image of this surface as it looked at that time, we would expect such hot spots to be, on average, the largest significant lumps we see in the image.
However, whether the angle spanned by this distance is precisely 1 degree will in fact be determined by the geometry of the universe.
In a flat universe, light rays travel in straight lines. In an open universe, however, light rays bend outward as one follows them back in time.
In a closed universe, light rays converge as one follows them backward. Thus, the actual angle spanned on our eyes by a ruler that is , light-years across, located at a distance associated with the last scattering surface, depends upon the geometry of the universe, as shown below: This provides a direct, clean test of the geometry of the universe.
Since the size of the largest hot spots or cold spots in the microwave background radiation image depends just upon causality — the fact that gravity can propagate only at the speed of light, and thus the largest region that can have collapsed at that time is simply determined by the farthest distance a light ray can have propagated at that time — and because the angle that we see spanned by a fixed ruler at a fixed distance from us is just determined by the curvature of the universe, a simple picture of the last scattering surface can reveal to us the large-scale geometry of space-time.
While the acronym stands for Balloon Observations of Mllimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics, the real reason it was called this name is simpler. A microwave radiometer was attached to a high-altitude balloon as shown below: Actually, at the South Pole it is really easy to do, since you can just turn around in a circle.
Boomerang path around Antarctica. The purpose of the balloon trip was simple. To get a view of the microwave background radiation, reflecting a temperature of 3 degrees above absolute zero Kelvin scale , which is not contaminated by the far hotter material on Earth even in Antarctica temperatures are more than two hundred degrees hotter than the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation , we want to go as far as possible above the ground, and even above most of the atmosphere of the Earth.
Ideally we use satellites for this purpose, but high-altitude balloons can do much of the job for far less money. In any case, after two weeks, BOOMERANG returned an image of a small part of the microwave sky displaying hot and cold spots in the radiation pattern coming from the last scattering surface. This image serves two purposes as far as I am concerned. But it also illustrates another important aspect of what can only be called our cosmic myopia.
When we look up on a sunny day, we see a blue sky, as shown in the previous image of the balloon. But this is because we have evolved to see visible light. This is fortunate for us, since much of this radiation could be harmful. Antarctica is a hostile, unpredictable environment. On a later flight, in , the entire experiment was nearly lost due to a balloon malfunction and subsequent storm. A last-minute decision to cut free from the balloon before it was blown to some inaccessible location saved the day and a search- and-rescue mission located the payload on the Antarctic plain and recovered the pressurized vessel containing the scientific data.
Before interpreting the BOOMERANG image, I want to emphasize one more time that the actual physical size of the hot spots and cold spots recorded on the BOOMERANG image are fixed by simple physics associated with the last scattering surface, while the measured sizes of the hot spots and cold spots in the image derive from the geometry of the universe.
A simple two- dimensional analogy may help further explain the result: In two dimensions, a closed geometry resembles the surface of a sphere, while an open geometry resembles the surface of a saddle. If we draw a triangle on these surfaces, we observe the effect I described, as straight lines converge on a sphere, and diverge on a saddle, and, of course, remain straight on a flat plane: To answer this, the BOOMERANG collaboration prepared several simulated images on their computer of hot spots and cold spots as would be seen in closed, flat, and open universes, and compared this with another false color image of the actual microwave sky.
On the right, the average spot size is smaller. Examining the spots and searching for the largest ones that had time to collapse significantly inward at the time reflected in the last scattering surface, the BOOMERANG team produced the following graph: The data are the points.
The solid line gives the prediction for a flat universe, with the largest bump occurring close to 1 degree! It was sent out to a distance of one million miles from the Earth, where, on the far side of the Earth from the Sun, it could view the microwave sky without contamination from sunlight.
The plane of our galaxy would lie along the equator, and 90 degrees above the plane of our galaxy is the North Pole on this map and 90 degrees below the plane of our galaxy is the South Pole.
The image of the galaxy, however, has been removed from the map in order to reflect purely the radiation coming from the last scattering surface. With this kind of exquisite data a much more precise estimate can be made of the geometry of the universe.
The expectations of theorists were correct. Yet once again, we cannot ignore the apparent obvious inconsistency of this result with the result I described in the last chapter. Weighing the universe by measuring the mass of galaxies and clusters yields a value a factor of 3 smaller than the amount needed to result in a flat universe.
Something has to give. While theorists may have been patting themselves on the back for guessing that the universe is flat, almost no one was prepared for the surprise that nature had in store to resolve the contradictory estimates of the geometry of the universe coming from measuring mass versus measuring curvature directly. The missing energy needed to result in a flat universe turned out to be hiding right under our noses, literally.
Even though observations had finally definitively determined the curvature of our universe — and in the process validated long-held theoretical suspicions — suddenly, even though it was known that ten times as much matter exists in the universe as could be accounted for by protons and neutrons, even that massive amount of dark matter, comprising 30 percent of what was required to produce a flat universe, was nowhere near sufficient to account for all the energy in the universe.
The direct measurement of the geometry of the universe and the consequent discovery that the universe is indeed flat meant that 70 percent of the energy of the universe was still missing, neither in nor around galaxies or even clusters of galaxies! Things were not quite as shocking as I have made them out to be. Even before these measurements of the curvature of the universe, and the determination of the total clustered mass within it as described in chapter 2 , there were signs that the by-then conventional theoretical picture of our universe — with sufficient dark matter three times as much as we now know exists, in fact to be spatially flat — was just not consistent with observations.
As I recall, our motivation at the time was more to show that something was wrong with the prevailing wisdom than it was to suggest a definitive solution to the problem. Instead, he realized that he could make a small change in his theory, one that was completely consistent with the mathematical arguments that had led him to develop general relativity in the first place, and one that looked like it might allow a static universe. The left-hand side of the equations describes the curvature of the universe, and with it, the strength of the gravitational forces acting on matter and radiation.
These are determined by the quantity on the right-hand side of the equation, which reflects the total density of all kinds of energy and matter within the universe.
Einstein realized that adding a small extra constant term to the left-hand side of the equation would represent a small extra constant repulsive force throughout all of space in addition to the standard gravitational attraction between distant objects that falls off as the distance between them increases.
But he reasoned that, because it was constant throughout all of space, it could build up over the scale of our galaxy and be large enough to counteract the attractive forces between very distant objects. He thus reasoned that this could result in a static universe on the largest scales.
Einstein called this extra term the cosmological term. Because it is simply a constant addition to the equations, it is now, however, conventional to call this term the cosmological constant. Once he recognized that the universe is actually expanding, Einstein dispensed with this term and is said to have called the decision to add it to his equations his biggest blunder.
But getting rid of it is not so easy. It is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube after you have squeezed it out. This is because we now have a completely different picture of the cosmological constant today, so that, if Einstein had not added the term, someone else would have in the intervening years.
While it is trivial mathematically to do so, once this term is on the right-hand side, where all the terms contributing to the energy of the universe reside, it represents something completely different from a physical perspective — namely a new contribution to the total energy. But what kind of stuff could contribute such a term?
The answer is, nothing. By nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing — in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space.
That is to say, if I take a region of space and get rid of everything within it — dust, gas, people, and even the radiation passing through, namely absolutely everything within that region — if the remaining empty space weighs something, then that would correspond to the existence of a cosmological term such as Einstein invented.
The answer must be nothing. Alas, most fourth graders have not taken quantum mechanics, nor have they studied relativity. So strange in fact that even the physicists who first discovered and analyzed this new behavior were hard-pressed to believe that it actually existed in the real world. The first person to successfully incorporate relativity into quantum mechanics was the brilliant, laconic British theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, who himself had already played a leading role in developing quantum mechanics as a theory.
Quantum mechanics was developed from to , primarily through the work of the brilliant and iconic Danish physicist Niels Bohr and the brilliant young hot-shots Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger and German physicist Werner Heisenberg. The quantum world first proposed by Bohr, and refined mathematically by Schrodinger and Heisenberg, defies all commonsense notions based on our experience with objects on a human scale.
They could move between levels by absorbing or emitting only discrete frequencies, or quanta, of light — the very quanta that Max Planck had first proposed in as a way of understanding the forms of radiation emitted by hot objects. In the s, Schrodinger and Heisenberg independently demonstrated that it was possible to derive these rules from first principles if electrons obeyed rules of dynamics that were different from those applied to macroscopic objects like baseballs.
Dirac had shown that the mathematics proposed by Heisenberg to describe quantum systems for which Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize could be derived by careful analogy with the well- known laws governing the dynamics of classical macroscopic objects. In , he hit pay dirt. The Schrodinger equation had beautifully and accurately described the behavior of electrons moving at speeds much slower than light. Dirac found that if he modified the Schrodinger equation into a more complex equation using objects called matrices — which actually meant that his equation really described a set of four different coupled equations — he could consistently unify quantum mechanics with relativity, and thus in principle describe the behavior of systems where the electrons were moving at much faster speeds.
There was a problem, however. Dirac had written down an equation meant to describe the behavior of electrons as they interacted with electric and magnetic fields.
But his equation appeared also to require the existence of new particles just like electrons but with opposite electric charge. At the time, there was only one elementary particle in nature known with a charge opposite that of the electron — the proton. But protons are not at all like electrons. To begin with, they are 2, times heavier! Dirac was flummoxed. In an act of desperation he argued that the new particles were in fact protons, but that somehow when moving through space the interactions of protons would cause them to act as if they were heavier.
Nature quickly came to the rescue. Within two years of the time Dirac proposed his equation, and a year after he had capitulated and accepted that, if his work was correct, then a new particle must exist, experimenters looking at cosmic rays bombarding the Earth discovered evidence for new particles identical to electrons but with an opposite electric charge, which were dubbed positrons.
Dirac was vindicated, but he also recognized his earlier lack of confidence in his own theory by later saying that his equation was smarter than he was!
The same physics that required an antiparticle for the electron to exist requires one such particle to exist for almost every elementary particle in nature. Protons have antiprotons, for example. Even some neutral particles, like neutrons, have antiparticles. When particles and antiparticles meet, they annihilate into pure radiation.
While all this may sound like science fiction and indeed antimatter plays an important role in Star Trek , we create antiparticles all the time at our large particle accelerators around the world.
Because antiparticles otherwise have the same properties as particles, a world made of antimatter would behave the same way as a world of matter, with antilovers sitting in anticars making love under an anti-Moon. It merely is an accident of our circumstances, due, we think, to rather more profound factors we will get to later, that we live in a universe that is made up of matter and not antimatter or one with equal amounts of both.
I like to say that while antimatter may seem strange, it is strange in the sense that Belgians are strange. They are not really strange; it is just that one rarely meets them. Even they are different than the rest of empty space, their surface and volume remains zero, while their attraction potential gravity force is not usual. The new dimension here is We know that two processes represent relation between mat- the surface.
Now, we have 2D adding time. It will look like: ter and radiation: ti-partitions This comes from integration of the third step. This is can conclude that physical analysis is difficult to send us to a the period of material consolidation or the child form of mat- faithful result for the moment. Therefore, we can come back ter. There are no short with mathematics and we continue with stopped analy- chemical and sis.
Start- teristics. There ing from the definition of third scale integral, which can define are not different the zone of Big Bang, the zone will look like: types of matter but just a cosmic gas. This is not the end of di- mensional evo- With different s, we represent different energetic states and lution, but it is with different r represent radiuses for each state.
The nearest enough for mat- state to the center has bigger energy than far one. The lines ter to be consol- coming from the center and connecting with the state are ra- idated. String diuses, which are different for different state. This is how it Theory confirms looks before the explosion.
The By my theory, it is clearly a stand-alone atom in hyper- energetic mass is separated on the states by a Riemann rule. There was a great tem- our problem. We just 10 s. For this state, we have this action: In help of this action, we can find the compression factor k. Factor k is result of energetic mass dividing by inertial mass. The combination of ci - is for each system with different value.
In addition, the speed of light tells us The GCP consider that the points are the main thing of Uni- for the maximal compression factor of each system. Active points in the Universe now are represented Now, we are turning back to math. Looking at mathematical by Black Holes. The condition of explosion can be presented mathematically on this way: Fig 1.
From top to bot- ing to the vector field. This will be analyzed in the third part of the paper. If the curvature is exactly zero, then the local geometry is flat; if it is positive, then the local geometry is spherical, and if it is negative then the local geometry is hyperbolic.
Co-moving coordi- culated plan. The gravitational force of the center point is nates form a single frame of reference according to which the enormous but enough to get control of the entire Universe.
It universe has a static geometry of three spatial dimensions.