antimatter is suppose to behave like normal matter, they just shouldn’t touch eachother.
I completely agree, but... (you knew there was a "but")
OK, first thing, all of my posts on this thread have been "tongue in cheek," even though I do always base those kinds of posts on some fundamental principle that I THINK I understand about the subject at hand. Any (lame) atttempts at humor always work better under those circumstances. I'm perfectly prepared to "argue" what I posted, but I DON'T put it forward as a serious scientific theory. This is college dorm room time, IMHO. I'm not offended if someone "prooves me wrong." In fact I'd be delighted and thoroughly enjoy it. Of course, I have a high standard of "proof." (though I will concede "it works better that way" real easy in most cases... when warranted, of course <g>)
Having said that, and given my understanding of quantum mechanics, the latest version of string theory, 11 (or is it 12?) dimensional space and all of the other esoterica of modern physics, just what does "normal matter" behave like? In an 11 dimensional universe (the current favorite of the string theory crowd) it ain't symetrical between matter and anti matter (at least according to the latest favorite untestable theories I've read)?
Now, we know that if they do "touch each other" we'll get some fairly... energetic... reactions, including lots of visible light. We have direct, experminetal evidence of that (even if only in teeny tiny amounts). We don't have any evidence of what anti-matter, on it's own, behaves like ("in the wild"). "Behaving like normal matter" is a perfectly reasonable statement, but a completely dark existence may be well within the boundry of "behaving normal," so far as we know. Think about "dark matter," for example.
P.S. I've been dabbling in this for decades (nothing serious) but I really got into it in the late 80s with Hawking's Brief History Of Time. I struggled through that when it first came out and worked very hard. I worked with online friends I'd made in the Planetary Society (at UCSF, USC, MIT and otheres) NASA (including some of the last "Pinamunda Pros" who worked there) and other similar places as I tried to understand what Hawking was saying. As I remember it the first portion of the book was about why Hawking was famous, primarily having to do with predictions involving black holes and macro cosmology. At the end of the pivotal chapter I really got it! I understood his theory, his predictions and his results! Then I turned the page to the next chapter and it start out (basically) "and this is why I was wrong."
I've never looked at "state of the art" physics quite the same way again. I could be 100% right in my statements about the void and anti-matter (though I wasn't really serious, I think it's spawned some really interesting discussions that may lead to some positive insites) but the point I was trying to make is a different one.
We are babies. We don't understand nearly as much as we think we do (though I think we understand more than we know) and that scares me, given the decisions and tools available to the infants in charge.
"Let's solve global warming by setting off 100,000,000,000,000,000 nuclear devices to overcome the effect of CO2."
Sound familiar?