|
You say:
The conservation of energy is violated in the period called inflation. Momentum conservation is violated at the same time.
***Inflation is predicted by GUT theories that uninfy all forces but gravity. This is the same theory that predicts a slight excess of electrons over positrons in the big bang. I do not know where the extra positive charge went to. But it is the consensis of high energy physicists that if exactly equal numbers of matter and anti-matter were created, they would ALL recombine, and we would not exist.***
What you say about conservation of charge is completely true, but it is not so easy to conserve charge locally when creating particles.
***The EPR fermion experiments produce locally equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But they do fly off in opposite directions. Charge is exactly conserved in both real and virtual (vacuum) pair production***
You can only do that by creating particles in groups and pairs are the simplest groups. But worse for the BB, you have the fact of QM and relativity which is that the laws completely expect matter and antimatter in equal amounts.
***Only pairs are produced. Never one at a time. Equal amounts are expected in QED but not GUT***
See Feynman Dirac Memorial lecture for details. There he shows the connection between relativity and QM demands the existence of antiparticles due to an amplitude an electron has to go faster than light. The only way you get more electrons created than positrons is to violate relativity and a deep symmetry principle...
***Feymann only did QED. It is well known that the deep symmetry principle is violated in GUT***
The only way you can get away with unbalanced creation and unbalanced annihilation and still conserve charge, is to say that there's definitely some imbalance in matter and antimatter, we created more electrons than positrons, and at the same time we created other positive charges as well, which cannot annihilate with electrons. Not predicted by any application of relativity to QM so far as I know.
***Nature is not limited by what you know. Read up on GUT***
I do not believe in any cosmological principles because cosmology is not a science of the same kind as, say chemistry. Instead I like to play advocate because it seems to me that this is a worthwhile thing to do when others are all backing a single horse. So although I said what I said, I don't believe in it with any conviction. What would be the point?
***Much of cosmology has been re-created in experiments and accelerators. We have not gotten to the GUT level except perhaps in cosmic rays. You seem to believe in black holes which have no experimental verification at all, only some indirect astronomical data. Try to be consistent. Also there are alternative cosmologies to the BB> it's a horse race***
But I completely refuse to accept that I "believe in creation without recombination." I'd like to know why you think I believe that. I meant the complete opposite, that there would be expected a vast amount of attrition. I also said it's hard for two neutrally charged objects to reach each other if they are on opposite sides of a black hole (EH).
***I said that because you have unique ideas about charge distribution- like matter and anti-matter on opposite sides of a black hole event horizon- that I assumed that you did not believe in recombination. As before, event horizons do not have physical existence. They are mathematical objects***
Richard |
