I have defined in my pre-print THEORY OF UNIVERSALITY that an object or a particle having speeds greater than the speed of light is anti-matter or negative-matter. Less than the speed of light is matter. Moreover, it is found that most of star-planetary systems travel faster than light in an absolute sense as observed by an observer placed outside the universe.

Kasibhatla,

One can trivially create small quantities of anti-matter. Positrons being a common example (for eg. used in positron emission tomography).

They do not travel faster than light.

Or do you have remarkable evidence for this claim?

..the word materialize, is more to be understood, what happens when e.g. light creates matter. Which then is more static, or moving on a smaller scale. This was more speculation, and would need definitions and axioms to become a theory.

Dr Strömberg,

The formation of matter is not entirely pertinent.

Mr Narayana was asking if antimatter (by its very nature) exceeds the speed of light.

It does not.

If it _did_, we would be unable to control it using conventional physics. The tachyon, a hypothetical entity, is problematic for many reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Just like normal matter, antimatter particles can be accelerated or slowed.

We have been able to make very low energy antimatter clouds for some time.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-cern-precision-antiproton-mass-cooling.html

Dear Lena and James,

Antimatter is just normal matter with oppositely charged matter and is equally likely to form in any mechanism like in pair production. Antimatter is not only used in PET, but also to my knowledge there are at least four large patches (clouds or nebulae) of antimatter (one is the so called “Mouse” near the core) in the Milky Way galaxy as chance accumulated formations.

These are identified in the gamma ray spectra of the galaxies as these antimatter patches emit gamma ray due to annihilation reaction with matter dust particle at the periphery of the patch. In fact there is a gamma ray halo that surrounds the Milky Way, which may be attributed to the random annihilation of matter-antimatter dust particles as these are produced near the core of the galaxy and are randomly dissipated outwards.

If you accept this explanation, you would of course have to abundon the idea of the Big Bang creation of the universe and take a dialectical view, as I do!

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Article THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO.

Dr Malek,

I know of no clouds of antimatter.

Yes, the nebulae that you mentioned show diffused signatures of annihilation photon pairs - but that is very definitely not the same thing as saying that an entire nebula is composed of anti-matter.

For example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06490

The presence of anti-matter is utterly expected from high energy sources - there may even be some primordial particles left over from the big bang!

Your suggestion that core-generated x-rays can propagate to the halo of a galaxy and then be diffused is a little suspect - I would imagine that their attenuation depth is far larger than a galactic radius.

Got a reference for that claim?

> If you accept this explanation, you would of course have to abundon the idea of the Big Bang creation of the universe

What explanation are you referring to?

And why should I abandon the big bang hypothesis?

Dr. James Garry,

No one wants you to abandon "Big Bang (BB) hypothesis" or anything else of your choice, Sir! It is absolutely your prerogative. I only suggested that IF you accept my view, ONLY THEN one has to abandon Big Bang theory. like me. Thats all!

BB theory does not allow the presence of any primordial antimatter, because according to that theory “almost” equal amount of matter and antimatter was created at the instant of creation, but they annihilated each other to give what is purported to be the present CMBR. We are extremely lucky that by some Divine Design or because of the intervention of Providence, there was a very slight excess of matter over antimatter at the time of creation.; this tiny excess of matter formed the galaxies and so on, including lucky us!

I did some little research on antimatter and published some papers including the references above. My Googling (as well as your Googling) will show references of lots of antimatter in our home galaxy alone. In addition to the references cited in my papers, a little Googling (just the few entries on page 1) gave me the following two references (which I knew about already, but did not mention in my comment above, because there are too many for a short comment!). I am sure that your dedicated search will bring many more references :

Ref. 1 shows the NASA picture of two huge gamma ray “bubbles” across the galactic plane extending many (50, 000) light years!

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/498884main_DF3_Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg

Ref. 2. “A Giant Cloud of Antimatter” is also from a NASA report

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/antimatter_binary.html

Of course, lots of “explanations” from official astrophysics galore. These are all mischief of the dark/black cosmic monsters ; “dark matter”, or rapidly spinning neutron stars, or the interaction of cosmic rays with low energy galactic photons, kicking them to gamma ray energy range as “inverse Compton effect”: etc. etc. If everything fails then we can always ascribe these to the capricious “smile” of the super massive the invisible black cat at the galactic centre!

I gave an explanation from my humble dialectical view. I knew that this view would be very controvertial, to say the least! Cheers! But sorry that I cannot continue further discussion in this forum; my first comment was supposed to be the one of, only.

Dear James,

I am only trying to define matter and anti-matter. This new definition solves more problems than it creates as you will see in my pre-print THEORY OF UNIVERSALITY.

Abdul,

The preponderance of matter over anti-matter is indeed a puzzle.

It simply tells me that there are symmetries that are broken at the higher energies close to unification.

Nothing more, nothing less.

We see similar broken principles at lower energies (CP violation for eg.)

> But sorry that I cannot continue further discussion in this forum

?:|

Some of us may come across as being a bit abrasive, but we're just trying to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

Kasibhatla,

Your goal may be noble but you are somewhat behind the curve.

The Standard Model ably predicts the *known phenomena* associated with matter and anti-matter.

I recommend the work by Cottingham and Greenwood.

I glance at your preprint. I am utterly bewildered by your notions about beta decay.

To pick a simpistic case: you correctly describe the Coulomb potential between two charges. But you then declare that because work is proportional to force x distance, you can simply multiply your force-law by a distance.

You cannot.

The work performed is the integral of the force with respect to distance.

dW = E.dr

E = k.q_1 . q_1/r^2

So you have an integral of 1/r to solve. This is a trivial undergraduate question and I am saddened that it seems to have missed you.

I don't see much point in going further. I would, if I were you, get a copy of Feynman's lectures, absorb them, and French's Special Relativity and perhaps Flowers and Mendoza for good measure.

Learn what works first before you seek to turn over the apple-cart.

Dr Garry and Dr Malek,

The Takhyon appears related or an evaluation of Doppler effect.

We looked at that by introducing densities (2006) and found an explicit formulae format. I did not have time interpreting it before/yet.

Dr Strömberg,

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with the tachyon.

The tachyon, a supreluminal particle, is hypothetical, and no evidence has been presented to suggest that they exist.

Unlike the Doppler effect.

James,

Even with the integral; the same result will come.

Kasibhatla,

And if you think that the integral of (1/r) dr is the same as (1/r), then all is lost.

I'm done here.

James,

We have to take the integral of (1/r^^2)dr. That, when you take from r to infinity will give you (1/r).