Most things that we have observed in the cosmos are made up of matter. If we assume that all the universe is created from nothing at the very beginning of creation, for example Big Bang, then we need to define equal amount of matter and untimatter to keep the balance. Combination of particle and antiparticle annihilates one another. So based on a set of uncertain premises a few questions come in mind:
1) Why the equality of matter antimatter is not supported by particle-physics experiments and physical cosmology?
2) Do we need to offer an alternative theory to baryogenesis ( the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the observed universe) or the classical relativistic quantum mechanics or CPT theorem, that support this symmetry and lifetime of particle and antiparticle, should be improved?
3) Which ideas do support a small preference of matter and consequently non-zero total baryonic number of the universe? Which phenomena did contribute to this imbalance? How do you define the magnitude of this asymmetry, if any?
4) High-energy nuclear physics explains about the fundamental particles at the earliest time of universe creation. How much GUT Baryogenesis under Sakharov conditions and violation of CP-symmetry are certain and can explain or justify this imbalance production of matter and antimatter?
5) If we assume the balance of matter and antimatter, can we expect a huge concentration of antimatter somewhere? How can we detect their temporal and spatial variability?
6) I am interested in knowing and performing an idealized modeling of the antimatter tracer field from the beginning of the universe based on different scenarios. Do you have any ideas to start with? What are your preferences models?
7) What are the last findings related to this topic?
I agree whole heartedly with Preston.
The universe made up of proven matter balanced off by a hypothesis that was only ever made to account for a hole in a theory,
Anti-matter, negative energy and time flowing backwards.
Dark matter, dark energy and more recently dark time
Quantum matter, quantum photons, quantum time
Hmmmm - don't you really get the impression that some scientists are really only selling books, creating careers and generating cash-flow?
We know nothing about the dark matter and the dark energy. We are not even able to understand the gravity yet, which is there all the time and that we can feel it also. Dark matter is something that is not understood at all. Once we come to know about this, I hope all the scientific ways of looking at the universe/nature will change.
Preston has the best answer and I agree with him.
- We (humans) do not know why ANYTHING exists, much less the Universe.
- We do not know whether it was created, nor whether it was born suddenly rather than existing since ever (Big Bang is just a theory).
- We are aware that our cosmological models are very crude.
- The assumption that matter and antimatter are faithfull mirror images of each other is just an assumption, nothing more, based on little more than the known anthropic predilection for symmetries).
- Science NEVER answers the "WHY" questions (neither does religion). It builds models and tries to answer the "HOW" questions on their basis.
- So, if there is an imbalance between matter and antimeter in this epoche and in this region of the Universe, it is just a fact. If it contradicts some of our assumptions, we might need to modify those. One problem is that there are too many options to do that.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling