• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

FeistyBoots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,506
Southern California
Michio Kaku was on CBS the other day and did a hand-waving explanation of this, saying that there must simply be more matter than anti-matter. I was less than enthused with his answer. I think we'll discover some pretty profound differences between them, should we finally make some antimatter breakthroughs.

Kaku does that a lot. It's far less rigorous than I prefer my science, which is why I stopped listening to him.

This finding is amazing, but surely we have more to find with such a bizarre conclusion. It's remarkably exciting to anticipate what we might find out because of this new data!
 

JonnyDBrit

God and Anime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,026
I was all told or explained it like in Tyson's latest astrophysics for everyone that for some reason it was like a million and one matter to a million anti matter. So just that one tiny extra particle in the primordial sea.

I guess they still don't know why it was this way though.

Basically. Either the universe starts with equal amounts matter and antimatter - because there's no reason it shouldn't - but some asymmetry in their collision sees matter come out on top, or the universe started with an imbalance of matter and antimatter, which then begs the question of why.

Cause and effect gets a bit difficult when you're trying to peer at the First Cause
 

dicetrain

Member
Oct 25, 2017
813
They just haven't discovered dudetrons yet. People who do LSD see them and then the universe makes sense so they're like duuuuuude.
 

Senator Toadstool

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,651
What about there just being unequal distribution in space? Like places where there is more antimatter than matter?
 

Nuclear Pasta

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
40
Oh duh. Nevermind, you're right.
I don't know much beyond slow-roll inflation and the likes, but given the amount of different variations, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some exotic inflation models where baryogenesis is more involved.

As time progresses, we'll be able to reduce the number of viable models and set constraints on other, but its pretty challenging. After all the cosmic microwave background radiation is the furthest back in time we can see, some 380,000 years after the big bang.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,682
USA USA USA
I don't know much beyond slow-roll inflation and the likes, but given the amount of different variations, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some exotic inflation models where baryogenesis is more involved.

As time progresses, we'll be able to reduce the number of viable models and set constraints on other, but its pretty challenging. After all the cosmic microwave background radiation is the furthest back in time we can see, some 380,000 years after the big bang.
Yeah whenever I read about this stuff it always strikes me as very defeatest about how we'll never be able to see past the CMB. That makes me sad :(
 
Oct 27, 2017
487
By measuring the leftover electromagnetic radiation from the big bang, and knowing the amount of ordinary matter around, one may calculate there are about a billion photons per baryon (proton or neutron).

This is a really tiny number. In the early universe, when the temperature was high enough to create baryon antibaryon pairs, they were created and anihillated back into photons freely, such that, in equillibrium there would be about the same number of baryons antibaryons and photons.

As the Universe expands and the temperature falls, photons no longer have enough energy to create new pairs, and the baryons and antibaryons anihillate. If their numbers were exactly equal, all that would be left today would be radiation, and that is what is meant dramatically by "shouldn't exist".

So there must have been a tiny primordial excess, of one more baryon per billion antibaryons. Long ago Sakharov identified what is needed for this to happen, these are the Sakharov conditions:

1) The conservation of baryon number (ammount of baryons) must be violated. This is a given, since you're trying to create an excess of baryons (antibaryons count as negative baryon number) . In the standard model, there are nonperturbative processes that operate at high enough temperature that can do this.

2) The symmetry between particle and antiparticle (CP symmetry) must be violated. Again this is necessary otherwise no net ammount of baryons over antibaryons would be created in excess. The weak interactions have a tiny ammount of CP violation in the quark sector, but it is not enough, so extra violation is needed. This is what this experiment was looking for. One place where CP breaking is expected to occur is in the lepton sector, but it could not be measured yet. It is expected to happen soon, however, and maybe it will be enough.

3) The reaction must happen out of thermal equillibrium, or else it can be readily undone. Here at lesst two options come to mind. One is the decay of heavy neutrinos (yet undiscovered) in the early universe. Another is that when the Universe cooled and the Higgs field froze in its current value, giving particles mass, a phase transition happened, much like the freezing of water, where ice crystals form, it is possible that bubbles formed in the early universe. Inside the bubble particles have mass, outside they don't. These bubbles expanded at light speed and collided with each other, and these collisions with the surrounding plasma may also create out of equillibrium conditions. The collisions generate gravitational waves, which maybe detected by the LISA space interferometer to be launched in the 2030s.

This baryon assymetry is one of the few indications of needing physics beyond the standard model of particle physics, so it is a really exciting field. Stay tunned!
 
Last edited:

Chamaeleonx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,348
So basically our current model is wrong. Just a reminder that there are plenty of mysteries left.
Yes, I agree. All models we have currently are always temporary. We accept and agree on them to form our reality but I doubt we are close to how the universe actually functions. If we actually know how it functions in its entire form then I wonder what we will do with that knowledge, equally amazing as it is terrifying.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,686
By measuring the leftover electromagnetic radiation from the big bang, and knowing the amount of ordinary matter around, one may calculate there are about a billion photons per baryon (proton or neutron).

This is a really tiny number. In the early universe, when the temperature was high enough to create baryon antibaryon pairs, they were created and anihillated back into photons freely, such that, in equillibrium there would be about the same number of baryons antibaryons and photons.

As the Universe expands and the temperature falls, photons no longer have enough energy to create new pairs, and the baryons and antibaryons anihillate. If their numbers were exactly equal, all that would be left today would be radiation, and that is what is meant dramatically by "shouldn't exist".

So there must have been a tiny primordial excess, of one more baryon per billion antibaryons. Long ago Sakharov identified what is needed for this to happen, these are the Sakharov conditions:

1) The conservation of baryon number (ammount of baryons) must be violated. This is a given, since you're trying to create an excess of baryons (antibaryons count as negative baryon number) . In the standard model, there are nonperturbative processes that operate at high enough temperature that can do this.

2) The symmetry between particle and antiparticle (CP symmetry) must be violated. Again this is necessary otherwise no net ammount of baryons over antibaryons would be created in excess. The weak interactions have a tiny ammount of CP violation in the quark sector, but it is not enough, so extra violation is needed. This is what this experiment was looking for. One place where CP breaking is expected to occur is in the lepton sector, but it could not be measured yet. It is expected to happen soon, however, and maybe it will be enough.

3) The reaction must happen out of thermal equillibrium, or else it can be readily undone. Here at lesst two options come to mind. One is the decay of heavy neutrinos (yet undiscovered) in the early universe. Another is that when the Universe cooled and the Higgs field froze in its current value, giving particles mass, a phase transition happened, much like the freezing of water, where ice crystals form, it is possible that bubbles formed in the early universe. Inside the bubble particles have mass, outside they don't. These bubbles expanded at light speed and collided with each other, and these collisions with the surrounding plasma may also create out of equillibrium conditions. The collisions generate gravitational waves, which maybe detected by the LISA space interferometer to be launched in the 2030s.

This baryon assymetry is one of the few indications of needing physics beyond the standard model of particle physics, so it is a really exciting field. Stay tunned!

Real glad to have you here!!
 
Oct 27, 2017
487
I wonder how different the universe would look had no anti matter been produced in the first place? like would a much larger percentage of the universe consist of matter? I wish I understood this stuff at any level.
Today there is pretty much no antimatter. But it is important that originally there was about an equal ammount. If it was a huge excess, today there would be more baryons and one may show that nuclear reactions burning deuterium would have happened more efficiently leaving a different primordial aboundance of light elements than what is observed today.
does dark matter have an antimatter equivalent?
Yes. In ordinary models, dark matter is not assymetric, so today about equal ammounts of dark mater and anti dark matter would be around.
What about there just being unequal distribution in space? Like places where there is more antimatter than matter?
People thought so, but if it was the case, right at the boundary between the matter and antimatter regions a lot of gamma rays would be produced, and we don't see any.
But it all came from a singularity, so why did it spread unevenly then?
It is not true that the universe came from a point, it could well be infinite from the very beggining, the big bang has no center. Every point in the Universe expanded.
 

bananas

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,857
Maybe it's random? For there to be more matter than anti-matter to be created is just chance.

I mean, maybe there have been previous big bangs with equal amounts, but those Universes would cease to exist, right? So wouldn't the answer be that it's unbalanced because it has to be?
 

Hentai

Member
Oct 27, 2017
176
By measuring the leftover electromagnetic radiation from the big bang, and knowing the amount of ordinary matter around, one may calculate there are about a billion photons per baryon (proton or neutron).

This is a really tiny number. In the early universe, when the temperature was high enough to create baryon antibaryon pairs, they were created and anihillated back into photons freely, such that, in equillibrium there would be about the same number of baryons antibaryons and photons.

As the Universe expands and the temperature falls, photons no longer have enough energy to create new pairs, and the baryons and antibaryons anihillate. If their numbers were exactly equal, all that would be left today would be radiation, and that is what is meant dramatically by "shouldn't exist".

So there must have been a tiny primordial excess, of one more baryon per billion antibaryons. Long ago Sakharov identified what is needed for this to happen, these are the Sakharov conditions:

1) The conservation of baryon number (ammount of baryons) must be violated. This is a given, since you're trying to create an excess of baryons (antibaryons count as negative baryon number) . In the standard model, there are nonperturbative processes that operate at high enough temperature that can do this.

2) The symmetry between particle and antiparticle (CP symmetry) must be violated. Again this is necessary otherwise no net ammount of baryons over antibaryons would be created in excess. The weak interactions have a tiny ammount of CP violation in the quark sector, but it is not enough, so extra violation is needed. This is what this experiment was looking for. One place where CP breaking is expected to occur is in the lepton sector, but it could not be measured yet. It is expected to happen soon, however, and maybe it will be enough.

3) The reaction must happen out of thermal equillibrium, or else it can be readily undone. Here at lesst two options come to mind. One is the decay of heavy neutrinos (yet undiscovered) in the early universe. Another is that when the Universe cooled and the Higgs field froze in its current value, giving particles mass, a phase transition happened, much like the freezing of water, where ice crystals form, it is possible that bubbles formed in the early universe. Inside the bubble particles have mass, outside they don't. These bubbles expanded at light speed and collided with each other, and these collisions with the surrounding plasma may also create out of equillibrium conditions. The collisions generate gravitational waves, which maybe detected by the LISA space interferometer to be launched in the 2030s.

This baryon assymetry is one of the few indications of needing physics beyond the standard model of particle physics, so it is a really exciting field. Stay tunned!
i-know-some-of-these-words-gif-1.gif
 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,341
America
Maybe, and bear in mind I am not a physicist, but maybe, just maybe there is NO asymmetry (!!!), and right now, there is a universe made of matter, and another universe made of the exact same amount of antimatter, that are on a collision course with each other, and this is just a short moment before our universe is annihilated by the antimatter universe, at which point all matter and antimatter will have reacted together, and all that will be left is energy.

You wanna get high?

tenor.gif
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,686
Today there is pretty much no antimatter. But it is important that originally there was about an equal ammount. If it was a huge excess, today there would be more baryons and one may show that nuclear reactions burning deuterium would have happened more efficiently leaving a different primordial aboundance of light elements than what is observed today.

Yes. In ordinary models, dark matter is not assymetric, so today about equal ammounts of dark mater and anti dark matter would be around.

People thought so, but if it was the case, right at the boundary between the matter and antimatter regions a lot of gamma rays would be produced, and we don't see any.

It is not true that the universe came from a point, it could well be infinite from the very beggining, the big bang has no center. Every point in the Universe expanded.
What would be the difference between dark matter and anti-dark matter?
I always assumed dark matter had no charge.
 

Juup

Member
Oct 27, 2017
41
Interesting stuff, I really need to learn more about anti-matter and particle physics in general. Any reading recommendations? I can handle some depth.

Maybe it's random? For there to be more matter than anti-matter to be created is just chance.

I mean, maybe there have been previous big bangs with equal amounts, but those Universes would cease to exist, right? So wouldn't the answer be that it's unbalanced because it has to be?
Yes, this would be the anthropic principle, I think. Everything is the way it is, because we wouldn't be here to observe it otherwise.
 
Oct 27, 2017
487
What would be the difference between dark matter and anti-dark matter?
I always assumed dark matter had no charge.
Good question. The difference between matter and anti-matter is not just in the electric charge, but also any other internal property (except the mass) is reversed. If dark matter is a fermion, like the electron or proton, then you may differentiate between the DM and anti DM by their particle number, the analogue of the lepton number for the electron (which counts the number of electrons minus the number of positrons) or the baryon number for the proton, which will be negative for anti-DM. Reactions conserve this particle number, so you need one DM (+1) and one anti DM (-1) to annihilate into particles carrying zero DM number, like standard model particles.

It is also possible that while DM is not electrically charged, it is charged under other forces, which act only on DM particles. In this case too, DM and anti-DM would be oppositely charged.

Finally, it is may well be that DM is its own anti-particle, like the photon in the standard model, or like the neutrino might be (a majorana fermion). In this case, the DM particle number need not be conserved and there is truly no distinction between the two.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,686
It would be completely wild if it turned out dark matter particles had their own forces acting exclusively between them, bringing about all kinds of complex structures.

It almost sounds like the parallel dimensions of old sci-fi..
 

Deleted member 4783

Oct 25, 2017
4,531
This will probably be answered in the future when we are dead and rotting.
 

m_shortpants

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,246
There was bug in the simulation during the big bang, but God/the omnipotent software engineer pushed a patch to fix it and didn't properly leave any comments in the code.
 

Veliladon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,559
It would be completely wild if it turned out dark matter particles had their own forces acting exclusively between them, bringing about all kinds of complex structures.

It almost sounds like the parallel dimensions of old sci-fi..

Well we know that dark matter can interact via gravity because we see its effects at scale and can map it by inferring from those effects.
 

zerocypher

Member
Oct 27, 2017
576
So what we know about physics isn't nearly enough. Maybe all that anti-matter is in a dark universe. So metal.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,711
our lives are too short, our planet is too small, and we're too far away from any sort of truth in the universe to ever achieve any sort of real understanding of our universe in our limited lifespans.

We need to find a way to extend our lifespans so people can stay alive longer so they can acquire more knowledge to progress. There's an old saying in science "You can't start young enough". The study of science is longer than the average lifespan of a human being, and it's only going to increase as more discoveries get made. Our lifespans are proving inhibitive.