Does our universe have an antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang?

[gary]

An article today in PhysicsWorld (https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/) reports on speculation by some Canadian
physicists that "our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of
the Big Bang".



Story here :-
https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/

[multiweb]

How do they come up with these theories? Soundslike that show "fringe"

[glend]

Frankly, the endless speculation is tiring. A few days ago we heard our universe is riding on the surface of an expanding bubble. Today we also heard that the LMC is now confirmed to be colliding with our galaxy, in like a billion years. While this stuff might make a nice PHD thesis, it is pointless in the future of the human race. Does knowing this change your plans for this year, or your New Years resolutions? We and our descendants, descendants, will be nothing more than scattered atoms long before any of this eventuates, if it happens at all.
Where's the Tylenol?

[gary]

Another Larson Far Side for today :- :lol:

[astroron]

There seems to be a bit of believe what I say,even though I don't have any evidence to back it up.
Just put it down to Quantum uncertainty principle.

This paragraph should lead to some serious questions to the publishers of the paper?
Quote)
Turok.

Turok, who also collaborated with Kieran Finn of Manchester University in the UK, acknowledges that the model still needs plenty of work and is likely to have many detractors. Indeed, he says that he and his colleagues “had a protracted discussion” with the referees reviewing the paper for Physical Review Letters – where it was eventually published – over the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. “They said you have to explain the fluctuations and we said that is a work in progress. Eventually they gave in,” he says.:question:
I find a lot of Cosmology is framed with the premise,I can't prove it but believe me anyway.

[multiweb]

A mini (sheldon) cooper. :P

[RB]

Doesn't change my New Year's Resolution.

:whistle:

[speach]

:help::help: other side of a sphere:help::help:

[xelasnave]

I speculate that the universe is eternal and so anti matter could never have formed so I think they need to reconsider.☺
Thanks Gary.
Alex

[AndyG]

Like say, the INside, or the OUTside :P

[bigjoe]

INDEED GLEN..
A LOT of these speculations with what premise, reasoning ? ARE starting to sound ridiculous..some of those involved should be embarrassed that they actually publish ..SPECULATION ..doesn't sound like real Science to me!

bigjoe.

[Eratosthenes]

Science speculates all the time. The scientific Method is based on proving or refuting a proposed hypothesis using experimental and observational evidence.
A hypothesis is a speculative, as yet unproven, proposition or theory.


That does not mean that ALL speculations, theories or hypothesis are formulated in the same manner or indeed carry the same weight. A scientist can propose a hypothesis which is tentatively grounded in already proven theorems. Or perhaps, logical or intuitive leaps made from firm theoretical footings - informed guesses.


The process of speculation, along with human creativity, in a sense drives progress in Science. (especially in relation to the very difficult Scientific problems and disciplines)


The Scientific methodology actually permits speculation, especially in the early stages of hypothesis development. One arena where speculation is forbidden is a court of law. But as we well know, a court of law has nothing to do with Scientific methodology or Justice for that matter. ["steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you King" Robert Zimmerman, Infidels Album, 1982]



:D