Antimatter Suppression

Do you have questions or comments about this model? Ask them here! (You'll first need to log in.)

WHAT IS IT?

At the beginning of the universe, antimatter and normal-matter were presumably created in equal amounts. It is an open question why we now have more of one type than the other. Theoretically, the two should have annihilated each other, so it's a mystery why we have any matter at all.

This model demonstrates the relativistic feedback loop that suppresses the creation of antimatter and leads to a normal-matter dominated universe regardless of initial conditions and spatial separation. The bias toward normal-matter is not apparent with small populations or individual particles; the effect is emergent with larger populations.

HOW IT WORKS

Particles mark their mass and relativistic bias, turn toward higher mass, and move. Patches test for annihilation, and then new particles are created based on the mass and bias at patches. The model accounts for the relativistic time dilation near mass, so there are less moments in a higher mass area and thus a lower probability for a particle to be randomly created there.

The area in front of particles is blueshifted and the area behind particles is redshifted. Areas with more blueshift will create an antimatter particle when they are chosen, the areas with more redshift will create a normal-matter particle when they are chosen, and areas with no bias or equal bias have a 50/50 chance to create either type of particle. If the relativistic bias is turned off then random particles are created.

Particles tend to cluster together making smaller but more populous blueshifted cores and larger but less populous redshifted fields. The greater number of particles created in the redshifted area then annihilate the particles from the blueshifted area until they dominate the field. We call the particles that inevitably dominate 'normal-matter.'

HOW TO USE IT

INITIAL-ANTIMATTER-PERCENT changes the 50% antimatter and 50% normal-matter default setup. While the Big Bang model and total universe may be zero-sum, it is useful to experiment with the possibility that different regions emerged with different antimatter/normal-matter mixes. This slider has no effect after setup.

SETUP creates a collection of randomly distributed normal-matter and antimatter particles. These toy particles are neutral in charge, flavor, and spin. They have equal mass and velocity. The particles are only differentiated by their origins, making them antimatter or normal-matter. Antimatter and normal-matter annihilate each other, while particles of the same type do not.

GO starts the simulation. Antimatter particles are green triangles with black lines. Normal-matter particles are yellow triangles with smaller black tringles.

POPULATION sets the amount of particles at setup and acts as a maximum while running.

RELATIVISTIC-BIAS? allows the redshift and blueshift to influence particle generation. When off the type of particle will be randomly chosen when creating new particles.

RADIUS-CUTOFF affects three parts in the code: How far is mass marked? How far is bias marked? When a particle turns toward the highest mass nearby, how far behind a particle does it look when asking another particle to turn the complimenting amount to conserve angular momentum? Technically, each radius should propagate at a finite speed and have infinite range, so this setting helps offset the idiosyncrasies of the model.

GRAVITY-SEARCH-ANGLE sets the angle of the cone used to find the largest mass in front of the particle. It influences the shape of the clusters.

HIDE-PARTICLES? helps you see the mass and bias distribution without the particles in the way. New particles are hidden only after they are created, so you can also see exactly where new particles are made with this turned on.

PEN? and CLEAR-PEN help track where the particles and clusters are going.

CLEAR-PLOTS resets the graphs.

THINGS TO NOTICE

The evolution of the population follows some basic patterns.

Stage one: Annihilation reduces the population and triggers new particle creation.

Stage two: Antimatter creation is suppressed; normal-matter creation is promoted. A look at stage two in detail:

PLOT 1 shows the distribution of particles. Even if the antimatter count starts or veers higher than the normal-matter count, once the normal-matter domination process starts it rarely stops. This stage only starts if the population, radius-cutoff, and gravity-search-angle are high enough. PLOT 2 shows the count of redshifted patches vs blueshifted patches. The particles turn toward each other, speed up toward a point, and then slow down as they approach the particles with dissimilar headings. So blueshifted areas are concentrated in a smaller area, and redshifted areas take up more space outside clusters. PLOT 3 shows the average mass per patch (particles in the radius-cutoff weighted for distance). Because the particles converge and slow down, the blueshifted areas generally have more mass in them. Patches with more mass have less causal actions per moment.

Less space and less actions in blueshifted areas leads to a natural bias toward matter made in redshifted areas.

Stage three: Normal-matter dominates and complexity increases.

Due to frequent annihilations, the complexity of clusters seems to be limited until one type of matter dominates. Try waiting or skipping to a 95% normal-matter universe and experiment with the cut-off radius and gravity-search-angle. Particles will merge into clusters, but those clusters will spread out depending on their search angle and radius. For example, low radius-cutoff (set to 2) and 90 gravity-search-angle will make the particles form long lines and webs.

Sometimes clusters become more complex than a cluster with a blueshifted core: the cluster will have a half-blueshifted and half-redshifted semicircles. These clusters can be stable and move across the field. In an open universe, these clusters could seek other systems to integrated into. Sometimes antimatter systems will linger like this for a while until quantum fluctuations help introduce enough normal-matter to start the feedback cycle. Notice that the semicircles can appear to spin around and show the rotation of the cluster.

Finally consider the observation that the universe is expanding because of the redshifted photons we see. In this model, this makes sense because the blueshifted photons are hidden in clusters that are getting more condensed and complex. The universe is functionally expanding, but the operational size is stable.

THINGS TO TRY

Adjust the initial-antimatter-percent.

Notice that normal-matter domination is inevitable. The relativistic effects create a feedback loop so even if a model starts with 95% or more antimatter, normal-matter will dominate eventually. This is in sharp contrast to the conception that the initial conditions of the universe must have had slightly more normal-matter than antimatter to arrive at our current universe, and that the universe must have been compact to allow for similar conditions to prevail throughout space.

EXTENDING THE MODEL

Standard model: Try adding and differentiating particles.

Gravity: The model uses different routines to turn and slow the particles. Other methods to code gravity work as well. To be more realistic, try making one that is not instantaneous and spreads through the entire field.

Resilient model: The current model has particles created anywhere in the field. Another step could be to only make particles in far-from-equilibrium conditions, such as where blueshifted areas meet other blueshifted areas and redshifted areas meet other redshifted areas. This should help regulate big crunch and big tears in operational space.

NETLOGO FEATURES

Weighted Patches: The RND extension allows for weighted randomness, but it does not work for patches. To pick a weighted patch, we pick one at random, ask if random mass + 1 = 1, make a particle if it is true, and pick a different patch if it is not true. Thie code continues to look for a patch but stops making more particles if it loops too often (like in huge populations with a high radius-cutoff).

Another workaround is using redshifted and blueshifted patches instead of using individual particles to influence the new particles. Particles work, but using patches saved us time and memory.

DEEPER THEORY

The model assumes particles have a quantum roll. Fermions have integer quantum rolls, so their signal does not diminish over space or time, but they have half-integer quantum spins causing their path to be curved in an electromagnetic field (which is not included in this toy model). Second, bosons have integer quantum spins so their path is not curved in an electromagnetic field, but this model proposes that bosons have a half-integer quantum roll which contributes to the diminished signal of bosons over space and time.

What is quantum roll? Another way to look at it uses Turing machine/M-theory duality perspective. Vector-machines/strings in the bulk are normally too slow to move alone and too small to make a signal out from the noise of the bulk. But quantized arrays of similar vector-machines/strings can roll through the bulk faster and make a noticeable signal. The process is like a rolling paceline of bicycles (Belgian tourniquet), so the leader moves back to be replaced by a new leader, ensuring distributed work. So fermions, particles with integer rolls, have equal amounts of vector-machines coming in and out of the bulk. Bosons, particles with half-integer rolls, have an asymmetric amount of vector-machines/strings going into or out of the bulk. This model of antimatter suppression presents one prediction of quantum roll.

RELATED MODELS

Gravity in this model is similar to dropping and turning toward a higher amount of chemicals in the Ants and Slime models. The process of moving was inspired by the Flocking models.

CREDITS AND REFERENCES

• Coyle, Dylan. (2017). NetLogo Antimatter Suppression model.

Created with NetLogo 6.0.1 :

• Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

There are 2 versions of this model.

Attached files

This model does not have any ancestors.

This model does not have any descendants.