Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Thomas Ray: ""Things have been moving fast." I see that! It looks good to me now." in Classical Spheres,...

Peter Jackson: "Richard, Good. You ain't seen nuffin yet, it gets simpler! Inside the box..." in Classical Spheres,...

amrit: "Gravity without graviton, mass without masson, dar energy without darkon" in Time at the Event Horizon

Eckard Blumschein: "The how-question already implies the non-fatalistic view which I consider..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Pentcho Valev: "The children of the universe are leaving the sinking ship because they now..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

David Brown: "Consider the question "How should humanity steer the future?" — there..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Steve Agnew: "You do pretty much have it. It is important to distinguish between real..." in Time and the Nature of...

Jason Wolfe: "Also, I'm sorry to say this, but a theory of the existence of spirits and..." in Reality's NeverEnding...

click titles to read articles

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

Quantum Computers Get Real
Fighting decoherence to scale up quantum technologies.

Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space
Satellite experiments could soon investigate the boundaries of quantum physics and relativity.

April 23, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Antimatter Universe [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

Blogger William Orem wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 18:57 GMT

Congratulations all around this week to Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa, who share in the Nobel Prize for their paradigm-shattering work into such foundational issues as QCD, strings, and the question of why anything exists.

That last one is a blunt way of describing the way theoretical physics comes at the mysterious imbalance between...

view entire post

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Eric S. wrote on Jan. 10, 2009 @ 03:56 GMT
"given that baryon symmetry evidently can break, as ours did, aren’t the chances of a perfectly symmetrical outcome vanishingly small, given the design space of possible universes?" -- Well said, and I'd never thought of it this way before. I wonder if there are other elements of the anthropic "fine tuning" argument that are susceptible to the same kind of treatment?

I haven't read Dan Brown's novel, but the notion that god is the most efficient explosion possible seems rather refreshing.

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 00:22 GMT
What kind of idiot would think that their is more than one universe. And which idiot said there's such a thing as anti matter. I can tell you right now that there are no such things as protons and newtrons (I can prove it). Although electrons and positrons do exist. Heck I can even tell you that the modern model of the atom is false. I'll give you a few problems for his theory (on next blog).

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
1- in order for his theory to be true. Matter would have to have been there before the creation of the universe.2- it explains no accurate details about space phenomilies such as black holes, gravity, and such.3-almost all matter has the same properties small/big. Almost all as in, there are different types of atoms, and it really doesn't get any smaller that, unless you count the matter by itself.To ask question email at:

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 03:15 GMT
I thought about it, and I found out why he might think like that. When gamma rays hits an atom the atom speeds up to point where it expands. No matter would be created though.

report post as inappropriate

Hasanuddin wrote on Jun. 11, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
For the most part this was a pretty standard representation of standard theory. The problem was that there was only one possible route discribed. However, at the same time, in the author's musings, aspects of the scappy modern Dominium lens were alluded to. For instance, the author mused about, "antimatter creatures living in an antimatter universe ... Cosmic rays from anti-supernovae colliding with our anti-atmosphere would spit out bits of actual matter, short-lived protons and alpha particles and whatnot."

The author's musing is very close to the Dominium's actual conclusions of antimatter galaxies, not universe, while we happen to live in a matter-based one.

The new model is compatible with all established data and/or observation. Come see the new model as it is unfolded at

report post as inappropriate

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.