Hey guys, I posted this on another forum and was wondering what you might think of this. Mods, feel free to move to another section if deemed appropriate.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter, including photons, are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space. The expansion of space might be a result of the slow unfolding of all matter. So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively canceling out the imbalance? To illustrate the folding of space as in the case of matter, imagine an infinite volume of very soft and elastic rubber. Now imagine tweezers that does not interact with the rubber, except for the tip. Now close the tweezers, gripping, say, a Planck length size of space. Twist it around in all directions making a few revolutions in every direction. Now imagine how the rubber would stretch around the spot where the particle has been created. Imagine the color changing according to the tension in that part of the rubber. Release the tweezers and the new particle stays there. Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber, increasing the circumference of the color change (gravity) as well as the degree of color change close to the two particles. To illustrate some idea of other forces, lets think of space as long piece of, say, steel cable .When a fast up and down movement is made, a transverse, two-dimensional wave is created that travels along the length of the wire. This illustrates the movement of standard particles like protons through space. If you tap the cable with a hammer, a sound is created whose speed is limited by the material properties of the cable. This longitudinal wave travels at a much faster (and maximum) rate than the transverse wave of normal matter and illustrates a photon. The speed of the matter-wave would be susceptible to the speed of the up-and-down movement (resultant force) and would increasingly be negatively affected by the elastic rebound pressure and internal friction. It would travel faster when the amplitude is smaller accompanied by increased speed in the up-and-down movement until the wave becomes small and energetic enough for it to propagate longitudinally. This illustrates the speed of light limit. Ridicule away. :|
Sorry for double post. Here are some Q&A later on: Quote: By folding, do you mean that a further extent to the matter than we can see, is composed of hidden extra dimensional substrates that can neither react with known matter or allow for any resultant causation? The matter would be analogous to the transverse wave in the steel cable, only more curled up in different directions. Matter would then travel like the transverse wave, in that it is only the curled-up shape that travels, so it would be susceptible to the elastic rebound pressure of space. As the matter moves faster, this rebound pressure would apply a greater and greater force in the opposite direction. Like the difference between falling into water from 1 meter and 50 meters. The more the force to deform the water is applied faster, the more inertia and internal static- and kinetic friction become prevalent (analogy to space). Quote: But, by saying that matter was created from "nothing", doesn't that also mean that there was nothing to create matter in the first place? I would think that there would need to be at least some minuscule catalyst to the universes formation from the start. As I understand it, virtual particles can spontaneously be created in empty space like in vacuum polarization. So with space and time being indefinite in this scenario, a huge creation event could have happened. However small the chance of that happening, given enough time, it would eventually happen. The initially created matter could even provide some EM fields to facilitate the creation of more matter in a sort of chain reaction. Quote: In your second example, it seems like your making a more simplistic process more complicated than it needs to be. Are you basically trying to say that the properties of space time itself, have various limiting properties? The second part is basically an elaborate analogy for you guys to be able to better conceptualize the conditions and the basics of some interactions in the scenario. I am a usually poor at voicing my thoughts, so I hope you can form some idea of what I am trying to get across. Quote: And, isn't it also the particle with the least resistance, if any, in the vacuum of space? Well, then it is only the speed of the highest velocity discharge that we know of, it doesn't mean that there isn't another process that could succeed the discharge speed of a photon. Yes, I tried to provide the analogy for that. In the steel cable, the fastest wave possible is the longitudinal sound wave produced by tapping it with a hammer. A wave can’t, to my knowledge, travel any faster than that sound wave through its medium (space).
I searched some terms on Wikipedia (I know) and was totally blown away by some the parallels I saw with my idea in various subjects. It seems that the part of my postulation dealing with the creation of the universe bare some resemblance to Self Creation Cosmology. :shrug: From this, I guess my idea of matter could be described as complex Riemannian manifolds? I think the initial seed for my idea sprang from wave-particle duality. Here I take it a bit further in suggesting that matter effectively IS a wave in the form of a non-static complex Riemannian manifold. My hypothesis also suggests the interconnectivity of space, providing some intuitive basis for dislocality. It also, seemingly, only allows for 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time. Just thought of this: When a particle travels, in this scenario, the elastic rebound pressure (or the material attribute of space that resists deformity) would cause a tightening of the geometric attributes of the particle face-on with the direction of travel, both increasing the tension in the fabric of the particle-wave manifold (mass) and linearly flattening the particle in the direction of travel. Both of these products of movement would be direct functions of the properties of the space fabric. One possible problem though could arise when relative viewpoints are considered. These situations would occur independent of ANY observer. Another thing is that light traveling relative to normal matter would not behave as predicted by relativity, in that it would slow down from the perspective of the normal matter when both travel in the same direction. I am curious as to whether every aspect of the relativity theory in regards to light have been experimentally verified. Keep in mind that in my hypothesis, space is filled with Riemann manifold waves of different varieties and a distinct photon wave whose speed is governed by the propagating properties of the fabric of space (analogous to sound in some ways). So from that, moving matter would behave in the same manner as observed by a bystander as predicted by relativity, except that those changes would occur in an absolute sense, independent of any observer. Thoughts?
What I would like, if possible, is for you guys to give me an example of something known in physics and then challenge me to explain it using my model. That would do two things: possibly debunk this model as well as provide some good mental exercise for me and anyone who wants to take part. C'mon, challenge me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi Kalster--- I saw this thread a few days ago but haven't had time to read it. In essence, what you have is particles coming from some excitation of space-time. I think similar ideas are being explored in a field called Loop Quantum Gravity---I don't know too much about the field, though. I'm not sure about this. What about gravity/gravitons? How do they enter the picture? Presumably in the same manner as General Relativity, through curvature? And why does everything have to anihilate into photons? What about neutrinos? What about electrons? The main problem I see is a way to implement it. So, for example, what plays the role of tweezers in your scenario? Also, Why is this true? General Relativity, as it stands, is perfectly happy living in any number of space-time dimensions. So just basing your ideas on ``space-time'' doesn't prove that the space-time is 3+1 dimensional.
Yes, similarly to curvature, but in this model it is the tension in the space-fabric. In the same way as observed by Newton, the tension would be strongest close to the particle as a consequence of it being a complex manifold produced by the stretching and folding of space, becoming less and less pronounced farther away from the particle. Yes, that might provide a bit of a challenge. Electrons I think would be a simpler wave-manifold than heavier particles. Different particles would also be different ways that the manifolds formed, including the amount of final layers after folding (mass) as well as the varying orientation of the folds in relation to other particles (spin, charge, etc). As for neutrinos, we are not exactly sure yet whether they actually have a very small mass or none. So in the case of them having mass, I would consider the possibility of them having the combination of VERY small mass and the orientation of the fold/s attributing to them the peculiarity of pushing away from normal matter in such a way that it is not affected by matter due to this fact. As a result of its very small mass, it does not affect the normal particles in turn, except in extremely rare incidences. It mainly has to do with virtual particle theory with its many varieties and alternatives, including vacuum polarization, Einstein-Aether theory, quantum foam, vacuum energy, etc. Any of these can provide an explanation for the extremely unlikely, but with enough time inevitability, of the creation of matter. The expansion of space observed today could quite possibly, in this model, be the result of matter slowly unfolding, eventually annihilating. It is already known that particles have half lives, so the unfolding scenario would kill two birds with one stone: The expansion of space and half lives of particles. True. The thing is, we are not yet sure if any more than the initially 3+1 dimensions exist. They were considered as needed in order for m-theory and string theory to provide an eventual GUT. The fact that relativity theory allows for any number of dimensions does not in turn prove their existence. Relativity is merely a very accurate mathematical tool for making predictions and providing explanations for observed phenomena. It does not necessarily mean that everything it predicts is true. That is why I am interested as to whether every aspect of the predicted behavior of light concerning reference frames etc. has in fact be experimentally verified. Keep in mind that this whole thing is for now nothing more than a mind experiment.
KALSTER--- First, I'd caution you against using words that you are not familiar with---words like ``Riemannian'' and ``manifold'' have very specifc meanings. But this is nominally the same as curvature. The two are related---i.e. you cannot create tension in your space-time without having some curvature. Then you run into the same problems as good old GR---specifically you cannot quantize the theory, i.e. make it consistent with quantum mechanics. Ok. But this doesn't answer the question. I can think of many processes that don't involve photons as a final state. We are quite sure that neutrinos have mass. I have no idea what you are saying here. What does ``push away'' mean? Further, if particles come as ``folds'' in the fabric of space-time, why do they not have integer multiples of some fundamental mass? For example, it doesn't seem that one can have ``half of a fold''---either the thing is folded or it is not. But if this is the case, then we should be able to see a pattern. Suppose the lightest particle has a mass m. Then the next heaviest particle should have mass 2m, then 3m, ... But this pattern is not observed in Nature. Again, you're waving your hands and hoping that I'll buy the buzz words Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You haven't shown how to get these things out of a vacuum polarization. Ahh I see. No. This is what kills your theory! If this were true then the expansion would happen more quickly in areas with more matter. But this is not what is observed. In fact, the observations are exactly the opposite of this---the expansion seems to be happening where there is little or no matter. (I bolded the above to catch your attention. You should respond to this paragraph and tell me why it doesn't kill your theory outright.) The only statement which you can make is that no experiment has found extra dimensions larger than a certain size. I know string theory very well. I am writing a PhD thesis on it. The extra dimensions are a prediction of string theory. After 100+ years of experiments, none have shown a contradition. ...which is why I didn't move it to Pseudoscience when I first read it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Doing your thesis for PhD? Nice. That means that I am getting quality comments on this. Thanks, I appreciate it! Would what I describe as matter qualify as complex manifolds? Well, I would imagine that gravity would keep the matter together (as is observed). So then any expansion would only show up in the spaces in between galactic clusters and super-clusters. I guess this would depend on the rate of expansion, which I think is slow when the half-life of most particles are (protons many orders of magnitude the age of the universe) considered. So, in theory, a calculation could be done to see if the relative abundances of particles, coupled with their respective half-lives would predict the rate of expansion we currently observe? Pardon my laymen terms. I mean they might have a third kind of charge that repels all matter, or tied to their small mass, a kind of anti-gravity that repels all matter. In this model there would not exist a graviton particle. Gravity would exclusively be a geometric phenomenon, as Einstein thought of it I think. As for the different mass, I am not sure why there would have to be a base mass. It could be that there exist certain configurations of folds that would be stable and some not. When a fold is created that falls in between particle states, it would almost instantly collapse to the nearest particle, maybe ejecting a photon or a particle of equal mass to the difference. Fair enough. I got the impression, reading about these buzz words, that the probability can be shifted enough for permanent particles to result from vacuum energy. If this is so, then for all known matter to be formed in the same way in around the same time, would present required odds beyond comprehension. But since part of the premise is an infinite universe in space and time, it would eventually happen. Am I making a crucial mistake here?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Agreed. I am just wondering if all predictions that relativity makes can actually be experimentally tested? I think I read about orbiting atomic clock experiments that produced the predicted time dilatation? In this model, if the traveling particle-wave is increasingly affected by the elastic rebound pressure, it would show the same effects as predicted by relativity, I think. Length contraction face-on with the direction of travel, increased mass as a result of the increased tension in the fabric of the particle-wave. Time dilatation would require some thought. Is this certain size the 3 spacial dimensions?
Well...you assume much Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, yes. But there IS no matter between galaxies. At least not enough (I'd wager) to cause this ``unfolding of matter = dark energy'' effect you're talking about. Most of the matter is just elemental hydrogen/helium left over from the big bang. But yes, you could probably do a calculation. The best you could do, however, is to find out how fast the unfolding were happening. The tricky thing is that now you say gravity holds things together, but matter is unfolding. How? The unfolding you talk about doesn't really seem to depend on whether or not the matter in next to other matter. So you're trying to treat gravity as fundamental, then you suffer the same problems that traditional GR faces---specifically it is not consistent with quantum mechanics. You may check out one of Lee Smolin's books (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity or The Trouble with Physics). This program of trying to quantize geometry is exactly what he works on, in a field called Loop Quantum Gravity. I think the first book is probably a bit better at introducing all of the quantum gravity approaches, and the second one is more or less an anti-string theory manifesto, but he DOES talk about LQG there. Photons---are they configurations in your theory? If so, then you should explain why they are massless, and other configurations are not. Well, kind of. You are assuming that these theories don't contradict YOU'RE theory. Another thing is that, if all matter were formed in this way, why is there more matter than anti-matter? Well, the thing is, at least one prediction has been tested and confirmed (there are many more, actually), and no contradication have been found. I don't think this is necessarily a problem for you, because you're trying to fit somethig over GR. Well, no. The 3 spatial dimensions are infinite. But extra dimensions have been searched for, and I think the current limit in radius is something like 10^-5 m.
Since I am little more than a science enthusiast, I'd concider your comments a much more credible and accurate critique than I anything I could come up with on my own! I am sorry, I think I explained myself poorly. In this model, all matter would be steadily unfolding, including those in galaxies. So since gravity is holding the matter in large clumps, the resultant effect of the expansion would only be observable in intergalactic space. Yeh, I guess we would have to have some accurate values for the age of the universe, the rate of expansion and the total and relative abundances of particles. Then I think after some calculations we might be able to have some very rough idea of the enclosed internal area of each particle. Yes, this brings up another feature of this model. The result of this would be that the particle-wave forms would constantly be moving relative to the space-time fabric. Inertia would be the result of the elastic back-pressure, so an equilibrium would have to result between the unfolding of the particles against the inertia created by this constant relative movement. In intergalactic space, inertia would play a lesser role, so particles would be able to unfold faster. This would mean than in the past, intergalactic space had a larger amount of matter. The CBR might even be a consequence of this larger rate of decay (I’m maybe pushing it a bit far there). Thanks, I’ll try a bit of reading when I get some time (got some vacation time coming up). I realize that this whole mind experiment deals almost exclusively with the macro world, something to be addressed. Yes, in the OP, I used the analogy of a sound wave traveling through the steel cable, as opposed to the transverse particle-wave ( no folds= no mass, but with some momentum). I do realize that photons are themselves transverse waves though. I used that analogy to demonstrate the speed of light limit. I am not sure if a photon propagating through space could be compatible with a transverse wave? I smell death…. Are there any evidence other that the Casimir effect for virtual particles? I am curious, because other possibilities might have to be considered. For instance, is it absolutely impossible for only a normal particle to be created? If this is remotely possible, then I think that many instances occurred where particle- antiparticle pairs were created, followed shortly by a mutual annihilation. Then eventually a large enough surplus of normal particles where created to have today’s universe as a result. A big if to be sure. I may be grasping at straws here (this whole thing in fact), but doesn’t Heisenberg uncertainty come into it? Is that the gravity ->space geometry prediction, confirmed by gravitational lensing? I am just worried about an integral feature of my model having already been debunked. Ok, maybe a very naïve question, but could the insides of the folds possibly equate to extra dimensions? Not required for this model though. Sorry for the long post, please tell me when I go too farPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well...I don't buy it. If matter really is ``unfolding'', then it should happen uniformly. I mean, if we carry your analogy of little twists on a rubber sheet through, it seems that you are predicting that, say, individual quarks and electrons would be getting ``bigger'' in some sense. But this has to happen isotropically---that is, an electron which is ``getting bigger'' in my computer cannot be causing expansion some 1000 light years away. It just doesn't make sense to me because this sort of behavior is non-local, which explicitly violates special relativity. Is this clear, or have I misunderstood something? Well...yes. Tons. The electromagnetic force is mediated by virtual photons. Anytime you draw a Feynman diagram the thing in the middle (normally a photon or W or Z boson) is virtual. So the whole edifice of quantum theory is built on virtual particles Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, no. If, for example, you have a very strong electric field, you can polarize the vacuum (this is the Schwinger effect) and create electron positron pairs from the vacuum. Well, yes. BUT if this DID happen, you would expet equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, which seems NOT to be the case in the universe today. Absolutely---this is why universes aren't created very routinely Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I was speaking hypothetically. But yes, gravitational lensing is well studied phenomena. (See this cool pic http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/01/gravitational_lens_hubble.jpg.) Well, I don't think so. For one, the extra dimensions of string theory are everywhere in the sense that at every point in our space, there are six orthogonal directions you can travel. From what I understand of your idea, it seems that the folds happen in matter.
Ok, so lets say you have an AU sized ruler and you move it by adding to it from one end. Would that violate special relativity? In my model, space actually moves through particles, since particles are nothing more than complex waves in the space medium. The particle would inflate noticeably only when moving at very fast speeds relative to space-time (thus increasing the tension in space-time, increasing its mass). The unfolding in contrast happens slowly, so the resulting extra space of surrounding particles would be moving slowly through the particle wave-bundle. The uncurling would tend to decrease the enclosed area in the particle, while space moving through the particle would tend to increase the enclosed area. Since the net result of the two is deflation of the particle (causing inflation in overall space), the unfolding pressure should be stronger than the other. Ok, so using a sine-wave as an analogy, particles would be the positive part and anti-particles the negative part. So when they encounter each other, negative interference would occur and both would be annihilated, sending ripples in the form of photons in all directions. In the 3D model, mostly only similarly configured particle wave-bundles would be able to undergo interference. That would mean that different particles with similar forms would be able to undergo interference. Two similarly shaped, but with different mass, particles might then undergo interference with a resultant single particle or two split particles with a configuration that would not easily undergo interference with their original anti-particles. So then eventually only the kind of particles we see today would survive. I would love to be able to play around with some computer simulations! Play around with different values here and there and see what happens.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On the extra dimensions: I am wondering what exactly space-time itself could be made of to be able to exhibit the properties required for this model, like elasticity for example. Would it be possible to assume that the space fabric consist of the Planck-lenghted strings predicted by string theory do you think?
''Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization.'' Yes, if we introduce curved time-like paths. In such a sense is a singularity an infinitely curved spacetime. ''Also assume that all matter, including photons, are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space. '' Matter and energy is nothing but space in a folded time. This is why we say that particles curve into themselves. This why we cannot have space or time without matter or energy... They are all of the same thing. As for these ripples, i see nothing wrong in such an idea. ''The expansion of space might be a result of the slow unfolding of all matter. So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively canceling out the imbalance? '' The expansion of space is inevitable. It's acceleration which is the real problem, and pertinent to your question at hand. As for matter being created from nothing, this is exactly what physics says. But physics is not impervious to mistakes. ''To illustrate the folding of space as in the case of matter, imagine an infinite volume of very soft and elastic rubber. Now imagine tweezers that does not interact with the rubber, except for the tip. Now close the tweezers, gripping, say, a Planck length size of space. Twist it around in all directions making a few revolutions in every direction. Now imagine how the rubber would stretch around the spot where the particle has been created. Imagine the color changing according to the tension in that part of the rubber. Release the tweezers and the new particle stays there. Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber, increasing the circumference of the color change (gravity) as well as the degree of color change close to the two particles. To illustrate some idea of other forces, lets think of space as long piece of, say, steel cable .When a fast up and down movement is made, a transverse, two-dimensional wave is created that travels along the length of the wire. This illustrates the movement of standard particles like protons through space. If you tap the cable with a hammer, a sound is created whose speed is limited by the material properties of the cable. This longitudinal wave travels at a much faster (and maximum) rate than the transverse wave of normal matter and illustrates a photon. The speed of the matter-wave would be susceptible to the speed of the up-and-down movement (resultant force) and would increasingly be negatively affected by the elastic rebound pressure and internal friction. It would travel faster when the amplitude is smaller accompanied by increased speed in the up-and-down movement until the wave becomes small and energetic enough for it to propagate longitudinally. This illustrates the speed of light limit. '' I see no reason why not, if one is absolutely sure that nothing can travel faster than ''c'', and since there is no way to determine or observe a particle moving at c>v, then we must revert to logic alone. Hawking has already presented math allowing a photon to travel at superluminal speeds for a very short period through a black hole using the uncertainty principle... so nothing is ever is what it seems. Good thread. Good read.
But if EACH particle is expanidng, this makes no sense. This would be like saying that every atom in your ruler got bigger, but the only place you noticed it was at the ends. Clearly this isn't right! The ruler gets bigger isotropically. Ok, but none of this really addresses the fact that there should be a matter/anti-matter symmetry in the universe, wihch there isn't. Well, space-time isn't MADE of anything. It is an effective description which is only good at scales much larger than the Planck scale. What you are doing is trying to extrapolate the space-time description beyond where it is expected to hold---specifically, you want to describe planck scale dynamics with something like General Relativity, and it doesn't work. So I think the answer to your question is no, because (as it pertains to string theory, at least) space-time is an effective model, and does not work at or below the string scale.
Yes, the ruler would get bigger isotropically, BUT at the same time the particles are constantly being pulled towards the centre of gravity. So the net effect would be that the particles stay close together and space beyond expands. Let me provide an analogy: Imagine a sheet of rubber, with a collection of hills (particles) in the centre. Now make a dot with a marker in between the first and second layer of the clump. Now take the sheet at two ends and pull. Imagine that the hills stay together under gravity. The dot will then move over a hill in the first layer and into free space. That is how I imagine it happens. I am sorry if I am making poor analogies.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok, after the initial spontanious creation event, there would indeed exist a symmetry. But then through interference and after an extended time, only products of interference would remain that would not easily undergo further interference. Only in high energy collisions would they be able to interact, mutually annihilating or producing new particles, etc. Lets me try to explain it this way: After the initial spontanious creation event, {a,b,c} = {-a,-b,-c}. Then through interference this might possibly happen like, a+b = d; d+(-c) = e; e+c = f,g,h; etc. So that the products are a mix of particles that do not easily undergo interference. The initial particles might have easily undergo interspecies interference with each other and products could arrise so that in the end no -c, d,etc would be left to annihilate with their anti-particles.If both (inter-scpecies interference and products that do not easily undergo interference) cases are possible, the only logical outcome would be the asymmerty we see today. Do you think the current understanding of space-time could allow for my idea? Or do you think some kind of aether would be more appropriate. I am venturing a guess that the presence of an eather, combined with my idea, could still allow for observed phenomina to happen.:shrug:I understand that at present a devide exists where relativity starts to fail and quantum mechanics starts to make sense, in other words the general patterns emerge from quantum uncertainty that we observe as being describable using relativity. I guess I am building a castle in the sky where, with my model, we might start to be able to narrow down the chaotic uncertainty we have to deal with presently.
Thanks for your comments! Do you think it might be possible that particles are shrinking as a result of the unfolding? That, combined with the actual space added through the unfolding, could create an observed effect of the expansion accelerating?
''Do you think it might be possible that particles are shrinking as a result of the unfolding?'' Einstein once said that energy was just crunched up bit's of space and time. If it unfolded, then the energy is returning back to whence it came... a disturbance in spacetime which is virtual in character. I'm not too sure about your question though. ''That, combined with the actual space added through the unfolding, could create an observed effect of the expansion accelerating?'' It is true that there is an existing theory called ''The Transactional Interpretation,'' says that what we are observing now, disturbs and creates the past and affects the future statistically... In this sense, acceleration was only just being determined, as we made more and more observations of the universe. According to the theory, we even create the radius of the early universe.
I THINK I understand what you are getting at, but I still don't think that this is how it could work. Locally, either the expansion of the particles or gravity wins. If gravity wins, then there is no explansion locally (i.e. near the particle). But then how can a bunch of local non-expansion lead to blobal expansion? Now you're running into problems with observation, I think. Aside from this, you STILL have the problem with matter-anti-matter asymmetry. The observation that we can make is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is right (relative ratios of light elements Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium and Beryllium), and this is at the three minute mark in the universe's history. So those three minutes are what you have to play with. What you have to do is establish that the reactions you are talking about happen with enough efficiency to get rid of ALL the anti-matter in that three minutes. (Three minutes is a LOOOOONG time, so don't worry about that.) Well, I think your ideas bear some qualitative resembalance to the idea of particles in the Loop Quantum Gravity research program. Check out some of Smolin's books. Again, that research has it's own problems at a quantitative level, and I don't personally feel that those people are on the right track. Remember that aethers in any physical manifestation have been disproved more than 100 years ago, despite what some people commenting in this forum would have you believe.
