I am not a physicist, nor do I have a university degree, but I have a question that has been on my mind for some time.

If Antimatter and Matter were created equally during the 'Big Bang' would the release of energy be sufficient to condense into the Matter that now makes up our Universe?

  • $\begingroup$ You need to read and try and digest this Wikipedia page (and links) on the Chronology Of The Universe. Short version, the question of why we don't (apparently) see equal amounts of matter and anti-matter is something of a mystery. The term for this is Baryon Asymmetry. $\endgroup$ – StephenG Jan 12 '18 at 22:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's very hard to understand what the meaning and motivation of this question are as written. Could you tell us more about what you have in mind? It sounds like there is an underlying misconception, but it's hard to tell what it is. $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell Jan 12 '18 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I thought if two neutrons (an anti neutron and an 'ordinary' neutron) collided they would annihilate each other, but surely they would not produce energy, because the energy created would equal the annihilation so they would both cease to exist. If they created energy where would it come from? -1 +1 = 0. But I have read they do indeed produce energy. I was curious if the energy was enough to condense into matter (neutrons which break down into Hydrogen atoms. $\endgroup$ – keithgraham Jan 16 '18 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ The above comment goes some way to (but not all) the meaning of the problem. The motivation is I am dying of lung disease and I am housebound 5 months of the year, and my mind wanders into strange places because I have no intelligent people to talk to. It took me years to figure out how movement is possible if to get anywhere you have to move half the distance, then half again ad infinitum. (It is the planck length, the Universe is 'grainy'.) Any physicist could have told me - if I knew one. $\endgroup$ – keithgraham Jan 16 '18 at 22:20

In theory antimatter and matter anihilate to pure energy. Thus if the antimatter-matter anihilation would be the source of "Bing Bang" in theory no matter should have been left. Beside, the expansion of the universe doesn't "help" condensing the matter - quite the opposite, it's expanding it and eventually the universe will "die" because of that.

However, Encyclopedia Brittanica states that:

At the higher energies characteristic of particle-antiparticle collisions taking place in colliding-beam storage ring particle accelerators or in the big-bang model of the early universe, the annihilation energy is sufficient to create heavier particles and their antiparticles, such as muons and antimuons or quarks and antiquarks.

Technically it means you could have an antimatter-matter collision and create particles by that. However, that occurs only when they collide with high energy. And I don't think it's a way to somehow break the law of conservation of energy - if there's the energy of collision + the energy(mass) of two particles, then unless something "weird" happens, the resulting energy + mass should be equal.

We don't know whether the Bing Bang occur because of antimatter-matter collision, however the real issue isn't why matter condensed (that's simply explained by gravity and as I said before, the expansion of universe resulting from the Bing Bang actually works "against" this condensing) but why there is not the same amount of matter and antimatter in the universe. This question has remains open. You might want to check out the answer to this similar question which explains it nicely: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/196177/181410

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. This has put me on the right road to answering my curiosity. $\endgroup$ – keithgraham Jan 17 '18 at 19:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.