THE FIRST SECOND AFTER THE BIG BANG; A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR 2024

 THE FIRST SECOND AFTER THE BIG BANG; A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR 2024

The first second after the Big Bang established our universe as we know it today.

According to the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Plank Second is 5.391247 X10^-44 seconds long. Current physical understanding is that the Plank Second is the smallest unit of time with any meaning.

At 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, gravity broke away from the superforce to become an individual force. The implication is that the superforce had to be a part of the energy that started the big bang.

As an individual force, Newton's Law of Gravity describes gravity, and a part of this law is Newton's Gravitational Constant, which is a fundamental physical constant. The implication is that, like the superforce, the gravitational constant must also be part of the Big Bang energy.

At 10^-36 seconds, the strong force broke away from the superforce. Again, the implication is that the strong coupling constant, another fundamental physical constant, was part of the energy of the Big Bang.

At 10^-12 seconds, quarks formed.

According to the article Where Does the Higgs Boson Come From, 30 March 2023, Matthew Chalmers, Editor of the CERN Courier (https://home.cern/news/news/physics/where-does-higgs-boson-come#:~:text=This%20field%20is%20understood%20to,interact%20with%20this%20quantum%20molasses%2C)

The Higgs Field “came into existence during an epochal “electroweak” phase transition a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang; whereas, previously, elementary particles such as the electron had moved at the speed of light, they were forever after forced to interact with this quantum molasses, which imbued them with the property of mass.”

A nanosecond is 10^-9 second. And there are 15 elementary particles in the Standard Model that have mass. Interactions with the Higgs Field set the mass of these particles. Once again, all mixing parameters and associated fundamental physical constants must already exist. This interaction again implies they, too, were part of the Big Bang Energy.

At 10^-6 seconds, protons and neutrons formed. Since protons and neutrons combine three quarks, which obtained mass at 10^-9 seconds, all mixing parameters and associated fundamental physical constants for combining quarks must already exist, implying that they were part of the energy of the Big Bang.

Well before the first second after the Big Bang has passed, the stage is set for the formation of the universe as we know it today. Specifically, all of the elemental matter particles of the standard model have formed, the four principle forces of our universe are in place, and so are all of the necessary fundamental physical constants of the universe. Our universe is set up to build matter as we see it today. Conversely, our universe's current status is inconsistent with the formation of antimatter. The fundamental constants necessary for building matter equally spread positive and negative charges among the elemental matter particles of the standard model. Thus, charge symmetry is conserved, and the Law of Conservation of Charge is not violated. And the production of antimatter is suppressed. 

The formation of antimatter in today's universe is still suppressed as the fundamental constants primarily only allow for the formation of matter. There are no free or large patches of only antimatter. Symmetry is not violated because, in limited high-energy occasions, some antimatter does form, but it is immediately annihilated when it interacts with ordinary matter. In other words, symmetry does exist because you can always make antimatter at any time. It is just that the basic model of our universe suppresses the natural making of antimatter. 

Based on the information just covered, there are two 2024 hypotheses:

First Hypothesis: The fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang.

Second Hypothesis: The fundamental constants only allowed our early universe to be comprised of positive matter and energy.

Therefore, there was no antimatter asymmetry in the first second of our universe.

Further reading,

https://medium.com/@philofysks/fundamental-constants-of-our-universe-solving-the-antimatter-asymmetry-just-after-the-big-bang-629c58b44baf

https://medium.com/@philofysks/where-is-the-positive-charge-in-our-universe-98db4d7fd412

Fundamental Constants of our Universe Solving the Antimatter Asymmetry Just After the Big Bang

 Fundamental Constants of our Universe Solving the Antimatter Asymmetry Just After the Big Bang

The Mathematical Numbers that are Part of Our Universe and Make it Work Account for the Fact that there is Only Matter and Little Antimatter in Our Universe.

INTRODUCTION

The most basic question posed by our species is: how did life occur? How did we, the intelligent human species, evolve to ask this question? The more fundamental question we must consider is how our universe evolved so that life can exist in the first place. The first expectation is that science and physics will provide insight into the answer to this basic question of how our universe evolved. However, in reality, we may never understand the steps for the evolution of our universe. The complexity of our universe, along with the secrets hidden in this complexity, only sometimes give answers that we are able to understand.

Many modern scientists and physicists believe that mathematics is the language of our universe. Almost all of the great discoveries of how our universe works have been explained or understood through mathematics. Since history has shown us the power of mathematics when it comes to understanding our universe, it is only natural to believe that mathematics will continue to play a leading role in the future understanding of our universe. Given the importance of mathematics in our universe, we have to conclude that all forms of mathematics were an integral part of the initial condition of our universe. That is, mathematics has been part of our universe ever since before the Big Bang. If science can understand the mathematics of the universe, it could better answer the questions we posed about life in our universe. 

However, there is a problem. It is not so much the mathematics that has to be understood; instead, it is the physical constants of the universe that are an integral part of the universe and its mathematics that need to be understood.

DISCUSSION

Symmetry is one of the most fundamental concepts of our universe. The general meaning of symmetry is that if there is something in our universe, then the opposite of this something also exists in our universe. For example, some things are hot, like the sun, and others are cold, like moons around planets. While moving forward, it is also possible to stop and then move backward. While moving, it is also possible to turn and move to the right or turn and move to the left. 

One of the most significant symmetry issues within our universe is the issue of positive matter and energy. Our entire universe is made up of positive matter and energy. The opposite of positive matter and energy is negative matter and energy within our universe. The electron and the positron are the most straightforward examples of positive and negative matter. The electron is the positive matter, and it is part of every single atom that makes up everything that we know of in our universe. The positron is the exact opposite of the electron; it's an anti-electron, and for the most part, it does not commonly exist in our universe. The positron is a real particle, just like the electron, and occasionally, it will pop into existence within our universe. The problem is that the electron has positive energy while the positron has negative energy. So when the electron and positron meet up, they annihilate each other, releasing an enormous amount of energy.

At the instant of the big bang start of our universe, the universe was nothing but energy. There were no electrons, positrons, quarks, or other matter. As the Big Bang progressed, all of the energy in the universe began to form into electrons, positrons, quarks, and other forms of matter. Symmetry demands that as the energy starts to create matter, the number of electrons and positrons that form should be exactly the same. In other words, there should be the same number of positrons as there are electrons. If this had happened, our universe would not exist because all of the electrons and positrons would have met up with each other, and they would all be annihilated. However, something broke the electron and positron symmetry, causing an asymmetry in our universe where more electrons than positrons were formed. It is unknown how this asymmetry occurred, but it did because our universe exists today. 

At the moment of the Big Bang, electrons and positrons were not the only matter particles created. Several other matter particles, as well as their antimatter particles, were also formed. Symmetry demands the equal formation of all other matter particles and their antimatter particles. But, just like the electron and positron, if any matter particle and its antimatter particle meet, they annihilate each other. However, once again, the symmetry of matter and antimatter particles was defeated, and the asymmetry of more matter particles than antimatter particles prevailed. And this gave us the positive matter and energy in our universe.

For our universe to exist as it does, something happened at the moment of the Big Bang that prevented antimatter from annihilating all matter. In other words, one of the most fundamental concepts of modern physics, symmetry, was broken. However, what if symmetry was not broken during the Big Bang? What if symmetry was not an issue at the moment of the Big Bang? What if, at the moment of the Big Bang, positive matter and energy were all that was allowed to form in our universe?

The physical processes that occur in our universe, like the formation of atoms and molecules and the corresponding formation of all matter within the universe, are understood through the language of mathematics. Like every language, mathematics has many parts. When it comes to understanding nature, one of the most important parts of mathematics is what is known as the fundamental physical mathematical constants. Specifically, these fundamental constants are part of the mathematics that explains almost everything we know and understand in our universe. Specifically, if these fundamental physical constants did not exist, or their actual values were slightly different from what they are now, then molecules, atoms, and matter as we know it would not exist.  

So, what is a fundamental physical constant, and how are they defined? The most straightforward answer to this question is that the fundamental physical constants must be measured. And these constants' measurement, or values, usually comes through experiments. The fundamental constants cannot be derived through mathematical processes or physical laws alone. They also cannot be decreed by a physical law. 

Consider the speed of light in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,000 miles per hour. These are two different numbers, but they measure the same thing. The only way to get these numbers for the speed of light is to measure how fast the light moves in the specific units of measure: miles per hour or meters per second. No known mathematical concepts can be used alone to determine how fast light moves. In other words, the speed of light is a fundamental constant.

What about the length of a second? Is that a constant? The answer is NO. We know that the second is the basic unit of time, but a human agreement defines the length of time. Specifically, the science community has agreed that one second will be the time it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation that occur when a cesium 133 atom transitions between two levels. 

In describing a fundamental physical constant, we must consider another term: a basic physical law. Basic physical laws are different from actual physical constants. The most common example of fundamental physical laws is Newton's Three Laws of Motion. These fundamental physical laws describe how things move here on Earth and throughout the universe. Newton also formalized a fundamental physical law for gravitation that explained how gravity works between two bodies of mass. Newton's basic laws all have mathematical equations associated with them, describing the actions being observed. In the case of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, contained within the mathematical formula is a specific number. This number is known as the Gravitational Constant, a fundamental physical constant. In other words, for the most part, fundamental physical constants are part of some basic physical laws. 

How many fundamental physical constants are there? So far, scientists have discovered fundamental constants in all branches of science, from physics to biology to chemistry and all other sciences. The current information suggests that there are at least 140 fundamental physical constants. As our knowledge base grows, scientists may discover additional fundamental constants. The National Institute of Standards and Technology maintains a list of fundamental constants: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all.pdf.

Are all 140 fundamental constants necessary to form our universe? The answer is yes. But were all of these fundamental constants necessary in the first second of the formation of our universe? In this case, the answer is no. So, how many fundamental constants were required at the beginning of our universe to get it started? This number can vary depending on who you ask or which reference paper you refer to. I will use the reference paper Ask Ethan: How Many Constants Define Our Universe, authored by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., published in Starts With a Bang! This research paper lists 26 different fundamental physical constants to define our universe and bring it into existence as we know it. 

The 26 fundamental constants for the start of our universe generally work with the four principal forces of our universe: gravity, the strong force, the weak interaction, and electromagnetism. These four principle forces have been a part of the universe since the Big Bang. Specifically, the current hypothesis is that at the moment of the Big Bang, these four principal forces were all forged together as a single superforce. Within the first second after the Big Bang, the four principal forces started to break apart from the superforce as the universe expanded and cooled down. The first force to break off was gravity. Shortly after gravity, the strong force broke away. Shortly after, the strong force broke off, but within that first second after the Big Bang, the weak interaction split from the electromagnetic force, which divided into electricity and magnetism. The last thing to happen in this first second is the formation of the Higgs field. Lastly, about 10 to 12 seconds after the Big Bang, the elementary particles responsible for every piece of matter we see and know of in our universe start forming. The 26 fundamental constants and the four principal forces work together to create the matter we see and know of within our universe. 

So, where did all of these fundamental physical constants come from? The most straightforward answer to this question is that nobody knows; they were a part of the universe's formation, just like the four principal forces. In other words, they were just there. This is not much of an answer, but it is the best available. A secondary question is when did the constants become part of the universe. Again, there is no specific answer to this secondary question. However, in this case, there is other information available that we can use to provide an idea as to when these constants had to be a part of our universe. And that is the separation of the four fundamental forces.

As stated above, the fundamental constants work with the four principle forces to create all the matter that is a part of our universe. That is, fundamental constants help define the four principal forces. The most straightforward example of this is gravity. Back in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his law of universal gravitation. As part of this published law, Newton had the equation for the gravitational force experienced between two bodies of matter. Part of this equation is the gravitational constant. Even though this constant is not part of the 26 constants in the above reference paper, it is nonetheless one of the basic fundamental constants of our universe. 

In the early timeline, the four principal forces became individual forces in our universe immediately after the Big Bang. But fundamental constants are part of the definition of these individual principle forces and are part of the formation of the matter of our universe. In other words, the fundamental constants had to be part of the universe when the principal forces became individual forces so that matter could ultimately form within that first second after the big bang. This means that since fundamental constants are part of the principal forces, the fundamental constants had to be a part of the universe before the principal forces formed in the first instant of the universe after the Big Bang.

The information above concludes that the fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang. 

It should be noted that currently there are no theories or hypotheses as to how or when the fundamental constants became a part of the universe.

Other conclusions regarding when the fundamental constants became a part of the universe are possible. However, the theory of a superforce and the timeline of when the fundamental forces separated from the superforce is just that, a theory. If there are changes to the superforce theory, or even if there are changes to the Big Bang theory, then when the fundamental constants become part of the universe, they will also face changes. Whereas if the fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang, then changes to current theories do not affect the fundamental constants and their part in forming matter in our universe.

Modern physics has shown that the basic building blocks of matter are quarks and electrons. More specifically, the up and down quarks (which comprise the proton and neutron) with the electron. The above-listed reference paper shows us that fundamental constants are associated with the mixing and combining quarks to form protons and neutrons. Another fundamental constant is elementary electrical charge, which, in simplest terms, is the electrical charge of an electron and proton. The proton charge results from the combined charges on the up and down quarks that make up the proton. The current theory is that the total charge of the universe is zero. That is, the total amount of positive charge on a proton is the same amount of negative charge on an electron. 

The current theory is that the up and down quarks combined to form protons and neutrons within the first second after the Big Bang. Therefore, the 26 fundamental constants listed in the reference paper above and other fundamental constants had to be in place within the first second after the Big Bang. Additionally, these constants all had to work together smoothly and consistently to form the basic building blocks of atoms and molecules of matter that make up our universe. In other words, for the fundamental constants of our universe to work together, they must be fine-tuned to their specific mathematical values to give us the universe we know. 

Given how the constants consistently and efficiently work with the basic matter particles of our universe to make our universe, the simplest solution is the conclusion stated above: the fundamental constants were part of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang. The follow-up conclusion from the first is that the fundamental constants had to play a part in developing the basic particles they would be working with through the principle forces. That is, the fundamental constants dictated that only the positive matter and energy particles that give us our universe could form at the beginning of the universe. In other words, antimatter asymmetry was the direction of our universe at the beginning. Specifically, the positive matter and energy universe we live in was dictated by the fundamental constants that existed at the beginning of the Big Bang. Although negative energy and matter were able to form at later stages of our universe, they were not consistent with the fundamental constants responsible for the beginning of our universe.

Given the information covered above, a second conclusion is that the fundamental constants only allowed for the existence of positive matter and positive energy in the early universe. 

This conclusion tells us that our early universe had no antimatter asymmetry. The fundamental constants were a part of the universe before the Big Bang and were responsible for forming the positive energy and matter present in the earliest parts of our universe.

CONCLUSIONS

The fundamental physical constants are a basic mathematical necessity for the formation and evolution of our universe. Without these constants, the universe as we know it would not exist. 

The modern cosmological theory says that the basic particles responsible for making all the matter in our universe existed in the first second after the Big Bang. Currently, the cosmological theory also says that due to symmetry requirements, antimatter particles were also created in the first second after the Big Bang. The current theory further states that during the first second after the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter that were created combined, destroying the antimatter. However, modern theory says that there was slightly more matter than antimatter for an unknown reason. Therefore, matter survived, allowing our universe to survive in its current form.

Current theory does not solve the antimatter asymmetry problem. No matter the theory or hypothesis regarding the formation of antimatter in the first second, the fact that more matter than antimatter formed represents a matter to antimatter asymmetry. However, we know that antimatter can always be made in the later stages of our universe. This is where matter-antimatter symmetry is a part of our universe. Specifically, just because antimatter can exist in small quantities now doesn't mean it had to be here at the beginning of our universe. The fundamental constants allowed for the formation of matter and, in essence, suppressed but did not eliminate the formation of anti-matter. On a small-scale basis, fundamental constants don't interfere with creating a small amount of antimatter.

The information covered in this paper presents two hypotheses:

First Hypothesis: The fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang. 

Second Hypothesis: The fundamental constants only allowed our early universe to be comprised of positive matter and energy. 

It is important to note that neither one of these hypotheses changes or affects any current modern hypothesis or theory. Instead, they work with modern theories and hypotheses to provide a more complete view of our universe. 

Furthermore, based on the first hypothesis, any changes or updates to current cosmological theories for the Big Bang do not affect how matter and energy are formed in the earliest stages of our universe.

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE, NOT SMALL ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE, NOT SMALL ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

Introduction

We have learned so much about our universe and how our world operates through the science of physics. It only makes sense for us to rely on physics to provide hints and clues regarding where to look next. Or a direction to go in order to build upon what we already know and have learned. Our responsibility to the universe is to look hard at what we have learned. Asking questions to learn more and to understand better what we know is the first step to moving forward and moving outward into our universe.

In the year 1868, Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann's paper on 'N' dimensional space was published. Essentially, Riemann's paper mathematically showed that the geometry of our universe could have 'N' dimensions. Information regarding Planck length was not part of the physics known at this time. This infers that the conclusion in Riemann's 'N' dimensional space paper was for large overlapping dimensions. Large dimensions are significantly different from the seven dimensions of space down below the Planck length currently theorized in string theory. In other words, our universe does not have to be limited to the three dimensions in which we live. The universe could be any number of dimensions over and above three. 

SIDE NOTE: Regarding the term "'N' dimensional space," any positive whole number can replace the 'N'. We live in 3 dimensions of space (3D space), but the math says 10 dimensions, 75 dimensions, or 500 million dimensions of space are possible. Also mentioned above was Planck length; this is the smallest length possible in our 3D universe, and it is way smaller than the size of the atom. Riemann's paper is the basis of the 10, 11, or 25 dimensions associated with string theory. However, the extra dimensions in string theory are curled up and exist in the space of the Planck length. 

Theodor Kaluza, in 1921, theorized a unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism in five dimensions (four dimensions of space and one time). In his original theory, Kaluza looked at the extra dimension of space to be large, not small. After being given feedback on his original large dimension theory, Kaluza modified his theory and reduced the size of his extra dimension. He did not, however, reduce the size of his fourth dimension of space to below the Planck length. Kaluza's use of an extra dimension of space was primarily done as a mathematical tool to try and combine gravity with electricity and magnetism as a follow-up to Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism. Specifically, the presumption at the time was that the three forces, gravity, electricity, and magnetism, had to all be associated through one set of equations. The unification of forces via the extra dimension theorized by Kaluza ultimately had some problems, the biggest of which was no "evidence" of a large overlapping fourth dimension. Thus, Kaluza's theory fell out of favor. 

However, over 100 years later, the question now is what evidence would a fourth dimension present to those living in three dimensions? 

SIDE NOTE: There is information that in his original unification of electricity and magnetism, Maxwell used four dimensions of space and one of time. Did Kaluza follow Maxwell's initial use of five total dimensions? Additionally, work to extend Maxwell's equations into 'N' dimensional space has been published. 

Some additional questions for future consideration regarding ‘N’ dimensional space:

1. Why not keep dimensions large rather than going small, as in string theory?

2. What concept, mathematics, or physics prevents large, overlapping dimensions? 

3. Riemann’s original theory had ‘N’ dimensions of space, so why stop at four?

4. What in nature or physics requires unification beyond electricity and magnetism?

5. Why not expand our knowledge in theoretical physics into four-dimensional or higher spaces first and then see if the unification of forces is possible?

Discussion

Established mathematics and previous theories that looked at a universe with more than three dimensions of space show that a multi-dimensional universe is a familiar idea. String theory, the current unification theory, looks at a multi-dimensional universe. With string theory, the extra dimensions of space are confined to an unimaginably small space that is experimentally impossible to reach and verify. In other words, in general, a universe of multi-dimensional space is an accepted theory rather than a proven theory. So, why can't a multi-dimensional universe be composed of larger, overlapping dimensions rather than folded dimensions in the smallest known space? And does our current physics and knowledge provide foresight for a universe with large, overlapping multiple dimensions?

Large Overlapping Dimensions Overview

Presume that a one-dimensional space is embedded in a two-dimensional space. And the two-dimensional space is embedded in our three-dimensional space. This presumption is very straightforward, given that a two-dimensional space can be created by stacking one-dimensional spaces, and a three-dimensional space can be made by combining two-dimensional spaces. Additionally, two-dimensional spaces are used in mathematics and physics as a tool for extending concepts and theories into higher-dimensional space. Therefore, we can presume that our three-dimensional space is embedded in a four-dimensional space.

Gravity is a required physical characteristic of all mass in our three dimensions, and it envelopes all of space in our universe. Therefore, our three-dimensional gravity will also influence embedded two-dimensional space. Again, by extension, it is not unreasonable to presume that four-dimensional gravity will exist and have some influence on our three-dimensional space. With the presumption that our three dimensions of space are embedded in four-dimensional space, the expectation is that the force of four-dimensional gravity would look like what we call dark energy in our three-dimensional space. 

Standard Model

In the standard model, there are three generations of elementary quarks. From the first generation of the "up" and "down" quarks comes the proton and neutron that comprise the nucleus of every atom in our universe. The second generation of quarks is exactly like the first generation of quarks; only they are far more massive and energetic. The stability of our three-dimensional proton composed of the first-generation up and down quarks is well known. Why would we think that a second quark generation proton does not exist as the "charm" and "strange" quarks are nothing more than heavier versions of the "up" and "down" quarks? Currently, the second and third generation of quarks exists for very, very short periods of time in our three-dimensional universe with no specific purpose. The question of concern is why would nature provide us with a second and third generation of quarks that do nothing? 

The physics of our universe has shown us that nature is purposeful and that things happen for a reason. Keeping things consistent, why is there no second generation of protons and neutrons? The short answer for now in particle physics would be that these second-generation nucleons cannot exist in three dimensions as they are too heavy and, therefore, too energetic. However, the general expectation is a larger fourth dimension would allow for more energetic particles to exist. In other words, the second-generation nucleons could exist in a fourth dimension, which could mimic the dark matter we see here in our three-dimensional space. 

Due to energy constraints, only three generations of quarks have been discovered. However, there is no physics or concepts that prohibit more generations of quarks and associated particles. In other words, much like Riemann's 'N' dimensions of space, there could also be 'N' generations of elementary particles.  

Antimatter Asymmetry

One of the most significant questions associated with our universe and its physics is the lack of any antimatter in our universe. However, the existence of antimatter is accurate in that antimatter has been created through natural cosmological processes and experiments. The reality of the existence of antimatter, but the fact that none of it is significantly present in our universe, represents a huge issue concerning one of the basic principles of physics, symmetry. 

So far, antimatter, for the most part, is nowhere to be found in our universe, creating a colossal symmetry issue. Adding multiple, larger, overlapping dimensions allows for antimatter to exist outside of our 3D universe but still be a part of our overall universe. A fourth-dimensional antimatter existence would maintain the symmetry in the overall universe, a simple solution to what is currently a significant problem that has no other known potential solutions. 

Right-Handed Asymmetry

Antimatter asymmetry is not the only asymmetry within our universe. And our current physics has no solution, explanation, or ideas on how to handle the asymmetry. The second asymmetry, and arguably a more significant asymmetry, is "Right-Handed Asymmetry." This is a genuine issue within our universe and modern physics that is not discussed or considered. 

A quick discussion regarding right and left-handed particles is in order. This will be a very down-and-dirty discussion. One of the quantum characteristics of elementary particles is "spin." There is much more associated with spin, but for this paper, we will only worry about right-handed and left-handed spin, which describes the direction of a particle's spin.

Within our universe, Neutrinos are by far the most abundant particles. There are millions upon millions of Neutrinos passing through our bodies every second of every day. All of the observed Neutrinos in our universe have left-handed spin. A Neutrino with right-handed spin does not exist in our universe. In other words, there is a right-handed spin asymmetry in our universe with the most abundant elementary particle in our universe.

The next left-handed interaction is of great importance in chemistry and particle physics. This interaction involves the weak nuclear interaction, also known as beta decay. The weak nuclear interaction changes neutrons into protons, and vice-versa, changing protons into neutrons. Once again, maintaining a short description for this paper, the weak nuclear interaction and beta decay is when a neutron decays into a proton and an electron. The weak nuclear interaction also includes a proton becoming a neutron with the addition of an electron. This is where the particle physics part comes in; the decay processes for protons and the change process for neutrons involve the W (plus and minus) and Z Bosons. The issue here is W and Z Bosons are only left-handed, and they only interact with left-handed spin protons, neutrons, and elementary particles. As for right-handed protons and neutrons, there is no specific information regarding what occurs with these particles.

The proton and neutron are the basic building blocks of all matter in our universe. Yet there is a distinct asymmetry associated with these building blocks for which there is no answer or understanding. The asymmetry related to the universe's "building blocks" goes much deeper than the elementary particles that make up the universe as we know it. The right-handed asymmetry also involves another set of building blocks on Earth: amino acids, the basic building blocks of all life here on Earth. Amino acids also come in right-handed and left-hand molecules. Only the left-handed amino acid molecules are the building blocks for the proteins in all of the life that we know. 

To put all of this into perspective, all of the matter that we know of in the universe and all of the life that we know of here on Earth are all about left-handed interactions. In other words, as we know it, we live in a left-handed universe with no known reason or explanation for this. This lack of knowledge begs the question; does a right-handed antimatter universe exist in another dimension since it does not exist in our known universe? If it does, it would account for most of the missing symmetry in our known universe.

Large Overlapping Dimension Further Information

Information and evidence indicating the existence of large, overlapping dimensions within our current knowledge of physics and the universe goes beyond what was covered above. We know that our universe is expanding, which affects the vacuum energy density of space. Maintaining the same energy density in the vacuum of the universe's space requires an influx of energy into the universe's expanding space. Larger overlapping dimensions can account for and supply the vacuum energy necessary to maintain a constant energy density in expanding space. 

Thinking Outside of the Box

Regarding the expanding space of our universe, a fourth dimension could cause this expansion. Additionally, the question of "What is the space of our universe expanding into?" routinely arises. The answer may be as easy as our 3D space grows into the 4D space it is a part of.

One of the principal endeavors of physics today is the unification of quantum physics with relativity through a "Grand Unification Theory" and then discovering the "Theory of Everything." Adding large overlapping dimensions increases the overall platform available to work and move forward on unification. Specifically, increases in the amount of energy, gravity, and particles available in more dimensions provide more opportunities for achieving unification. The same thought holds for a Theory of Everything. Increasing the physical attributes of the universe available to work with can increase the chances of finding a Theory of Everything.

One additional aspect of multiple overlapping dimensions is independence. That is, our three-dimensional space can be independent of other dimensions, thus allowing us to have the physics concepts unique to our space. Similarly, a 4th overlapping dimension of space can have its unique physics and concepts, some of which may "leak" into our three dimensions of space. As we expand and learn more about additional dimensions of space, there will be new frontiers and energy levels for us to learn. This additional knowledge through extra dimensions can also help us understand what we do not entirely understand in our three-dimensional physics. 

Riemann's paper was proof for 'N' dimensions. Relating this to the standard model, nothing says there are only three generations of particles. It is not unreasonable to presume that there are more, possibly, 'N' generations of quarks and elementary particles corresponding with more dimensions of space. We cannot claim that because something has not been discovered, it does not exist. This is particularly true when established mathematics and previous theories have looked at multiple dimensions for solutions. Moreover, given that our current knowledge indicates there are more dimensions and potentially more generations of elementary particles, we need to look for these things until we can prove they do not exist. 

Conclusion

When was the last significant discovery in physics? If we think about quantum physics and relativity, both were discovered over 100 years ago. Additionally, the discovery of both quantum physics and relativity came about from physics concepts already in place. Relativity was based on Maxwell's work with electricity and magnetism, while quantum physics came from Planck's work with black-body radiation. A universe of multiple dimensions is the leading theory being worked on today through string theory. So, a multi-dimensional theory is something that has been introduced previously. The current string theory looks at dimensions compacted into a small area of space. If it is possible for extra dimensions to be small, then symmetry would suggest that our universe could also be composed of extra, large, overlapping dimensions. Furthermore, there is nothing in today's physics that forbids large, overlapping dimensions.

This paper looked at part of our current knowledge base for physics and picked out some of the most direct pieces of evidence and information that point to our universe having multiple large dimensions of space above our three dimensions of space. Furthermore, past and present theories and mathematical papers have looked at multiple dimensions of space as being a part of our overall universe. Additionally, multiple large, overlapping dimensions are the most direct and easiest way to account for the asymmetries in our current physics and understanding of our three-dimensional universe. There is also direct visual evidence for multiple large, overlapping dimensions; consider the Klein bottle and other objects we see in three dimensions that can only be "opened" up in four dimensions of space. 

There is a purpose to all things about the universe we live in. Therefore, the physics of the universe and everything we discover about the universe and in physics must have a purpose. If we do not have a physics purpose for everything discovered so far, then more must be discovered. Furthermore, a purpose to our universe and its physics also dictates that we do not have unanswered questions about anything we have found. If we have to rely on something unknown and not understood, we have a hole in our understanding of current physics and our universe. Today's physics provides hints and clues that point us in directions to look further. It is up to us to accept this challenge and move toward a greater understanding of our universe. 

DARK MATTER, A QUARK PLASMA FUNCTION OF SPACE

DARK MATTER, A QUARK PLASMA FUNCTION OF SPACE

All of Space Contains Fields and a Vacuum Energy, Why Not a Quark Plasma?

I just posted a comment on a recent paper posted on Medium. This paper had nothing to do with dark matter. I asked the following question and made the following statements in order to provide an example of a point I was making.;

Where is the proof that dark matter is a particle? 

Every paper I have read or seen on dark matter refers to it as a particle, yet there is no proof that this is the case. How about this for an off the cuff hypothesis on dark matter, it is a quark plasma that is a function of space.

As I was typing out supporting facts for the plasma hypothesis I started thinking about what I was saying and it occurred to me that the Quark Plasma idea was worth more thought. Consider the below supporting facts and ideas that could be used to support a dark matter quark plasma hypothesis;

1. Quarks have mass therefore they have gravity.

2. Quarks are not individually found in the universe. They come in bound or plasma forms.

3. The Quark sea (plasma) inside a proton accounts for 99% of the proton mass.

4. There are two generations of Quarks that are pretty much unaccounted for in our universe.

5. There is the "fabric" of spacetime that bends and deforms with gravity and energy.

6. The quark plasma could be composed of the 2nd and 3rd quark generations.

7. The quark plasma could be a function of, or, exist in the "fabric" of space.

8. A function of space itself could allow the plasma to interact with normal matter gravitationally.

9.  Existence in space itself could also protect the plasma from all other interactions with normal matter.

Quantum Field Theory states that all of space itself is composed of “fields.” Such as the electric field, magnetic field and gravitational field. There are also the particle fields along with a “vacuum energy” which allow for the creation of “virtual particles.”

NOTE: The simple description I gave above on Quantum Field Theory, QFT, is accurate, but it does not do justice to how complicated QFT really is. The interesting point is that it has been stated that QFT is one of the most successful modern theories. Yet, at the same time nobody completely understands it. 

The  QFT discussion brought out the concept of virtual particles. Simply put, a virtual particle is a very, very short lived particle that interacts with matter and/or energy but cannot be detected. In other words, it is there and it interacts with the universe as we know it. But we cannot directly see it or detect it.

Virtual particles act just like dark matter does. And, gravity is a function in all of space.

One more piece to consider, would a quark plasma require energy in order to maintain itself? If it does, where would it get its energy?

QFT and its associated vacuum energy and virtual particles exist at every point in space. The current information shows us that the space of the universe is expanding. The space in our universe is growing. Current science also tells us that the energy associated with every point in space is constant. In essence this means that as space is expanding there also has to be more energy coming into space in order to maintain the same amount of energy at every point in space. 

If the Quark Plasma is a function of space and there is energy coming in for space, then there can also be energy to maintain a Quark Plasma.

Modern science has shown us that dark matter, quark plasmas and 2nd and 3rd generation quarks are all real and exist within our universe. QFT has shown us that fields, which include gravity, and virtual particles are also part of our universe. According to QFT, virtual particles are such that they can directly interact with matter and energy, but they cannot be directly detected. This is the same characteristic as dark matter. Therefore, accounting for dark matter as a Quark Plasma made up of 2nd and 3rd generation quarks existing as a function of space, like fields and virtual particles is out of the box, but straightforward thinking. Specifically, nothing about the idea and/or hypothesis of dark matter being a quark plasma that is a function of space conflicts with any currently accepted theories or facts. Rather, the indications are that it is consistent with current theories and discoveries. 

So what is wrong with the idea/hypothesis that dark matter is a quark plasma that is a function of space? It directly conflicts with the current well established belief in the science community that dark matter is a particle. The arXiv e-print repository has 42,900 papers containing the term “Dark Matter,” going back to April 6, 1992. It is a safe bet that virtually all of these papers refer to dark matter as a particle. And, that they cover a theory as to what kind of particle dark matter is and how to discover a dark matter particle. However, not one of these papers proves that dark matter actually “is” a particle.