Based on what you know about antimatter. do you think that our universe is all matter?
595584
the spontaneous creation and destruction of particles goes on all around us all the time.  but antimatter does not seem to be part of that process in our "timeframe" and it could be that if time is viewed as a dimension only we will find the antimatter at another point on that dimension.  If antimatter did appear annihilation would occur on a vast scale.  I believe that matter and antimatter have a weak repulsing force to each other, or utterly neutral, as the antimatter has a "reverse gravity" (perhaps because it's moving backwards on the time dimension).\n\nOur Universe, all the parts that count to us, is all matter.  The antimatter resides next to us, but not in our universe.
85426
nothing what's the antimatter with you! seriously though if you mean antimatter, it's a form of matter in which most of it's properties are reversed.
312883
Yes.\n\nThere is so much of this universe that we do not know.
81505
It is believed that that since the universe evolved out on 'nothing'.....so every matter has an anti-matter..(since the sum total of all matter and anti-matter is zero in universe)...so chances are there are is another earth (anti-matter of where we are)....and hence the all the people and other things are in pairs......BUT, all these are theories...there are no scientific validations of these.
338341
Anti matter is negative version of matter.To differentiate the matter and antimatter we consider the atomic levels of matter.Our own matter is made with atom of centraly proton of positive charge & charge less neutron called nucleus.And a negative charged electrons revolving around it.But in antimatter nucleus is  negative charged proton(anti proton)& electron of positive charge (anti electron) revolving around it.\nI think that matter and antimatter repell each other,have a negative gravitation.
574838
It can and does. Most of the universe is empty space, with no matter or energy in it. Unless you mean all of space, as a whole. In which case, it doesn't exist devoid of matter and energy, and it is highly unlikely that it ever would. (Almost impossible, but no one really knows enough to be able to say that, for certain.) But seeing as how space is simply nothingness, I don't see why it couldn't.
65663
No.\nThe Universe is a physical object.  It has a definite size and shape.  The Universe is so big that we do not know its limits.  Our ability to comprehend is not the problem, our technology is.  If we had the right equipment, we could see to the end of the Universe and mesure its size and shape.
1060065
It's EVERYWHERE, it seems!!!!\n\n\nMaybe this can help:\n\nhttp://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html\n\nhttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antimatter_sun_030929.html\n\nhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29may_1m.htm\n\nhttp://www.matter-antimatter.com/
339718
Physicists say they have mass produced antimatter, a crucial first step towards precision studies of its properties that may help solve one of the greatest mysteries of the Universe. \n\nAntihydrogen has been made before, but only a few atoms at a time. \n\nNow, the Cern particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, has produced more than 50,000. \n\nAntimatter is the mirror image of ordinary matter and both should have been created in equal quantities at the birth of the Universe. That everything around is predominantly ordinary matter is therefore a major puzzle. \n\nCern is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. \n\nIn the latest experiment, researchers used the Cern accelerator to create antiprotons and trapped them in a vacuum chamber. \n\nA radioactive source, meanwhile, was used to create positrons, which were held in a separate trap. The antiprotons were then fed into the pool of positrons, where the two combined to form antihydrogen. \n\nThe antimatter was short-lived being destroyed when it bumped into normal matter. Detectors picked up the unique radiation signatures of antimatter as it was annihilated. \n\nAlso see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Antimatter_production
1001442
This is an interesting question, for which I can't claim to know the answer, but I'm going to take a guess anyway. \n\nThe crucial qualifier in your question is that matter and anti-matter cannot interact in your example. Otherwise, your matter person would be instantly annihilated. But since you eliminated the possibility, the answer is that you would feel gravity just the same as in a matter universe.\n\nHere's why. Anti-matter is still composed of the same materials as matter,  just with opposite charges (i.e.--electrons are positive, protons are negative). Presuming that your "anti-gravity" is not repulsive by nature (otherwise your world couldn't exist) then it's effects on the "matter" in your body would be the same as for the anti-matter because your anti-gravity would have no mechanism by which to distinguish between your electrons and its positrons, etc.
361418
I doubt it.  Even with the vast size of the universe if such a thing could occur it might be very small.  Consider this.  If you can see things in outer space then photons have to be present; even in shadow.  They bounce off of objects and register on your retina.  It has been proven that photons do have mass and are matter.  Also neutrinos are all over the universe and can pass through all matter.
1172279
The anti matter is actually very unstable. It all got anhilited after reacting with the matter particles. The probability of an antiparticle  encountering a matter particle is very high because the matter is much much more compared to the antimatter, so probably most of the anti matter has already been 'burnt'.
992429
Hi bornsmartgal\n\nThe antimatter created in the very early universe annihilated with matter created at the same time.  When a matter particle and its antimatter counterpart meet the annihilate and produce energy (eg a collision between an electron and positron produces two back to back photons).  In the early universe there was a small over abundance of matter over antimatter (one billion and one matter particles for every one billion antimatter particles).  After the annihilation this leaves matter left over (plus a billion photons for every matter particle!)\n\nThis initial over abundance of matter over antimatter is puzzling - the difference between matter and antimatter is a reversal of charge and particle physics is largely symmetrical to charge reversal. Physicists have been looking for an asymmetry in nature which will explain the over abundance, and have finally found a few such events (called charge-parity symmetry violations).  It appears nature isn't totally symmetrical after all.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
597634
Well, you're asking a question that has plague man since we looked up upon the stars and wondered who we are, where we come from, and what is out there?\n\nFirst of all, you're confusing some of the concepts that you've heard. Let's address your questions one at a time:\n\n(1) It is true that as we learn more about the Universe, we're discovering that the world is NOT as it superfically appears to be. A good example is that we used to think the Earth is flat, or that the Sun rotated about the Earth. These are superficially obseravable phenomenons, but the truth is very different. So now we're finding out many more new facts about the Universe that defies our imagination. For example, it turns out that the matter that we can observe through our telescopes, the stars, galaxies, etc. makes up only about 1% of what's out there in the universe, and we currently have no idea really what makes up the rest. We just call them dark matter and dark energy.\n\n(2) The Anthroptic Principle is basically saying that given all that we know about the universe, it can't be just  coincidence that it is capable of supporting life and particularly intelligent life like us. So the principle is suggesting that there must be some Agent (supernatual or otherwise), a designer, behind the contruction of the universe. Whether you believe this or not is up to you.\n\n(3) Here you should not pay too much attention. It is true that Quantum Mechanics (a branch of physics that tells us how microscopic elementary particles behave) saids that the outcome of an event depends both on the Observered and the Observer (hence the term "participatory universe"). But these rules only apply to electrons and photons, not people, stars and the universe. At least we currently don't have any evidence that it does. Also, I think all this is really more of a philosophical position than scientific fact.\n\n(4) I can't tell you whether the universe really exists or not. You will have decide that for yourself. But just remember, before you decide to jump off a building, make sure you are absolutely certain that you won't be falling down and breaking your legs.
680011
no one really knows yet.\n\nalthough, at one point, people thought atoms were the smallest particles, now we know about protons, neutrons, and electrons (and now there's a theory that they're made out of something called quarks, but no one really knows what they are)... it's only a matter of time until we find out what they're all made of... and what those things are made of... and what those things are made of... and so on (I seriously doubt it ever ends... like the universe)
472392
"Matter can be neither created or destroyed" is an old saw from pre-Einstein physics.  Matter is continually being transformed into energy in every star in the sky in accordance with E = mc^2, so in that sense, there is certainly less matter in the universe now than when I started typing.  However, (I think) the equation is reversible, so the energy can be transformed back into matter, so maybe the answer is there has always been a constant amount of matter/energy in the universe.
743218
There are some things that we c an all agree on. There is a numbered amount of materials in the universe, we are all made of the same chemicals/compounds/metals etc. We can also agree that at a lower level (atomic/subatomic) everything in the universe is made of the same few things (atoms/electron/quarks/strings etc.), so my question becomes this. What force guides matter at the subatomic level. What tells this group of atoms to form a diamond molecule and the other to form water, or a feather. What tells the atomic structure of rubber to bounce and concrete to, well, to NOT!\n\nTo me, to deny the idea of intelligent design is much more of a leap than to accept the obvious, evident truth all around us that although chaos exists all around us, if you look deep enough there is most definitely order and intelligence in the universe. God may not be the man in the Bible but God most definitely rules the universe at the atomic level.....so, no, similarities between species means nothing more than that, similarities....