The electromagnetic force has an asymmetry: the magnetic field *lags *the electric field. The phase shift is 90 degrees. We can use complex notation to write the **E** and **B** vectors as functions of each other. Indeed, the Lorentz force on a charge is equal to: **F** = q**E** + q(** v**×

**B**). Hence, if we know the (electric field)

**E**, then we know the (magnetic field)

**B**:

**B**is perpendicular to

**E**, and its magnitude is 1/

*c*times the magnitude of

**E**. We may, therefore, write:

**B** = –*i***E**/*c*

The minus sign in the **B** = –*i***E**/*c* expression is there because we need to combine several conventions here. Of course, there is the classical (physical) right-hand rule for **E** and **B**, but we also need to combine the right-hand rule for the coordinate system with the convention that multiplication with the imaginary unit amounts to a counterclockwise rotation by 90 degrees. Hence, the minus sign is necessary for the consistency of the description. It ensures that we can associate the *ae ^{i}*

^{E}

^{t}^{/}

*and*

^{ħ}*ae*

^{–}

^{i}^{E}

^{t}^{/}

*functions with left and right-handed spin (angular momentum), respectively.*

^{ħ}Now, we can easily imagine a antiforce: an electromagnetic antiforce would have a magnetic field which *precedes *the electric field by 90 degrees, and we can do the same for the nuclear force (EM and nuclear oscillations are 2D and 3D oscillations respectively). It is just an application of Occam’s Razor principle: the *mathematical* possibilities in the description (notations and equations) must correspond to physical realities, and vice versa (one-on-one). Hence, to describe antimatter, all we have to do is to put a minus sign in front of the wavefunction. [Of course, we should also take the opposite of the charge(s) of its antimatter counterpart, and please note we have a possible plural here (charges) because we think of neutral particles (e.g. neutrons, or neutral mesons) as consisting of opposite charges.] This is just the principle which we already applied when working out the equation for the neutral *anti*kaon (see Annex IV and V of the above-referenced paper):

Don’t worry if you do not understand too much of the equations: we just put them there to impress the professionals. 🙂 The point is this: matter and antimatter are each other opposite, *literally*: the wavefunctions * ae^{i}^{E}^{t}^{/}^{ħ}* and –

*add up to zero, and they correspond to*

*ae*^{i}^{E}^{t}^{/}^{ħ}*opposite forces*too! Of course, we also have lightparticles, so we have antiphotons and antineutrinos too.

We think this explains the rather enormous amount of so-called * dark matter* and

*in the Universe (the Wikipedia article on dark matter says it accounts for about 85% of the total mass/energy of the Universe, while the article on the observable Universe puts it at about 95%!). We did not say much about this in our YouTube talk about the Universe, but we think we understand things now. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field: it does not seem to absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is, therefore, difficult to detect. That should not be a surprise: antiphotons would not be absorbed or emitted by ordinary matter. Only anti-atoms (i.e. think of a antihydrogen atom as a antiproton and a positron here) would do so.*

**dark energy**So did we explain the mystery? We think so. 🙂

We will conclude with a final remark/question. The opposite spacetime signature of antimatter is, obviously, equivalent to a *swap *of the real and imaginary axes. This begs the question: *can we, perhaps, dispense with the concept of charge altogether?* Is *geometry *enough to understand everything? We are not quite sure how to answer this question but we do *not* think so: a positron is a positron, and an electron is an electron¾the *sign *of the charge (positive and negative, respectively) is what distinguishes them! We also think charge is conserved, at the level of the charges themselves (see our paper on matter/antimatter pair production and annihilation).

We, therefore, think of **charge as the essence of the Universe**. But, yes, everything else is sheer geometry! 🙂