Timeline for Why is it assumed that the Big Bang produced equal parts matter and antimatter?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2023 at 22:29 | answer | added | LolloBoldo | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 4, 2023 at 19:36 | answer | added | David Raymer | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 4, 2021 at 4:05 | comment | added | Allure | physics.stackexchange.com/questions/556528/… This might answer your question. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 20:05 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 20, 2020 at 3:51 | comment | added | Edouard | I've upvoted Kyle Oman's answer, as it seems compatible with my previous comment and adds more sophisticated info. Re the comment itself, I'd had a problem getting around the vision of particle / antiparticle pairs doing anything but closing in for their mutual annihilation, but, actually, I think they might be separated by any amount of space, and, in fact, Poplawski's cosmology appears to suggest a possibly past- and future-eternal sequence of LU's on decreasing scales of space and time. | |
| Jul 20, 2020 at 2:58 | comment | added | Edouard | Visible symmetry may have been undone if our universe is local--i.e., causally-separated from other local universes, as proposed in such multiverse models as Poplawski's black-hole based "cosmology with torsion" (described in many papers since 2010). Using Einstein-Cartan theory (which requires a spatial extent for fermions), in combination with the separation of the partners in virtual fermion/antifermion pairs by the horizon of any rotating star collapsing gravitationally, their interaction with the larger stellar fermions spins the inner partners of such pairs outward to form any such LU. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 20:25 | comment | added | Stoby | @safesphere I think we probably agree on more than we disagree here 😂, I am simply stating that without some condition providing for the asymmetry, they should exist in symmetric amounts. Evidently this is not the case, so such a condition must exist. Of course the names anti particle and particle are arbitrary but that is a matter of semantics not science. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 19:27 | comment | added | safesphere | @Stoby My point is that you are making an implicit assumption that is not justified as given and thus represents a missing step in your logic. You assume that the creation of each particle as either a particle or antiparticle is an independent process as opposed to some unknown underlying symmetry governing the creation of all particles at the initial moment. Also, the division of particles into "particles" and "antiparticles" is arbitrary and done simply based on the experimental fact of their abundance. Nothing stops us from viewing electrons as "antiparticles" and positrons as "particles". | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 17:10 | comment | added | Stoby | @safesphere sure, this is true, but the universe is not a pencil, by way of analogy, we could imagine it as billions of pencils standing on end, in which case the statistics of them falling would yield 50/50 ratios (assuming a two state falling mechanism). | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 17:08 | comment | added | safesphere | @DiracDelta “the Universe appears to be made almost entirely out of matter, with next to no antimatter” - This is not exactly accurate, because there is no definition, by which matter is different from antimatter. For example, nothing stops us from declaring all positive elementary particles “matter” and all negative ones “antimatter”. Then all electrons are antimatter with no contradiction. If you also assume all quarks are made of three particles, then the amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe are equal, just differently arranged: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 16:57 | comment | added | safesphere | @Stoby A pencil standing on its top may fall to the right or left with no preference. This invariance does not imply that the pencil ends up falling to both sides simultaneously. | |
| Jul 1, 2020 at 9:05 | history | edited | Kyle Oman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 123 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jul 1, 2020 at 9:02 | answer | added | Kyle Oman | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 30, 2020 at 19:30 | answer | added | Charles Francis | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 30, 2020 at 15:33 | comment | added | Stoby | By way of a non-mathematical explanation, C symmetry, or charge symmetry has generally been assumed to hold in QFT. This means if we created a universe with only matter and one with only anti-matter, they would evolve identically; the system would be invariant to this. This would imply that evolving from some base state (an unknown state of matter in the very very early universe) no preference would exist for matter or anti-matter, implying a 50/50 universe. This is, however, not the case evidently. | |
| Jun 30, 2020 at 14:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 30, 2020 at 14:48 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2020 at 14:03 | history | asked | user268803 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |