Since Sakharov's work (1967), a number of mechanisms for baryogenesis have been proposed , most of which go beyond the standard model and also require additional assumptions.
I propose the simplest explanation, based on the assumption that the universe in its early stages was in a pure, metastable quantum state.
In this case particles with equal probability can decay into particles and antiparticles. In the absence of any asymmetry, the creation of a particle or antiparticle in this case is a random process. However, since particles (from which baryons are subsequently born) are entangled with one another, such a violation of symmetry will occur immediately in the whole system, and not in its individual regions.
See Melkikh A.V. A pure quantum universe as an alternative to inflation.
Article A pure quantum universe as an alternative to inflation
Antiparticles are, also, entangled with one another, (and with particles) for the same reasons particles are.
It's not exactly news that the universe started out in some quantum state-and whether the state was metastable, or not, doesn't mean anything by itself.
Matter/anti-matter asymmetry doesn't have anything to do with inflation; they're totally distinct phenomena.
Sakharov's conditions are still valid-it's just that the CP violation described by the Standard Model doesn't seem sufficient, quantitatively. But that shouldn't be surprising.
I agree that this asymmetry doesn''t connected with inflation. I think that metastability of quantum state is important - in this case the universe exists in this state during limited time.
If matter is entangled so is anti-matter. The matter anti-matter asymmetry will soon be erased, until and unless there is a difference in decay rates of matter and anti-matter. Then the difference in decay rates is to be compared with the expansion rate of the universe to see whether the asymmetry you have generated survives through 13.8 billion years, which is the age of the universe. Furthermore the asymmetry has to be created after the era of inflation is ended, otherwise the asymmetry will become highly diluted and unobservable.
First, I think that we don't need inflation hypothesis at all.
Second, if the entanglement between the original particles is not complete, then the predominance of matter over antimatter (or vice versa) will also be incomplete, but sufficient for the formation of baryons. As a result, after the annihilation of a part of the matter and antimatter, there will be an excess of one or the other.
Metastability is meaningless as such. For a quantum state what matters is whether it's an eigenstate of all operators of interest. If it's not, it will evolve into a linear superposition anyway.
Annihilation of antimatter isn't sufficient-of course it will occur, but unitary evolution implies that the matter/antimatter asymmetry will oscillate, as happens in the CP violation experiments. That's why something more is required; what's needed is known (cf. Sakharov)-how it's realized isn't known. So it doesn't make sense focusing on the what, but, rather, on the how. And the answer to that is processes beyond the Standard Model, so it's an experimental issue, rather than a theoretical one: there are many models that are possible.
I agree that many models are possible but the best is the model with minimal assumptions (all other things being equal).
“…but the best is the model with minimal assumptions (all other things being equal)…”
yeah, that is very rational rule.
And this problem seems has rather plausible solution in accordance with this rule, at the suggestion that at Matter’s Beginning only some primary absolutely neutral particles [“Planck mass particles”] were created.
Any particle is some closed-loop and obligatorily reversible algorithm, when “particles” are running algorithms with “direct command order”, and “antiparticles” are running algorithms with “reverse command order”. However these algorithms aren’t symmetrical, and so particles and antiparticles are different.
Planck particles have absolutely symmetrical algorithm. Thus in this case there is no “particle/antiparticle” difference and logically is quite permissible to assign that all these fundamentally primary particles were “only particles”; and thus Matter was built at once from the matter only and never had antimatter, at least practically.
However Planck mass particles can interact, by totally neutral/ universal gravity force only, though.
Correspondingly the matter/antimatter balance problem didn’t appear at Beginning, and at further interactions of these particles, when at every interaction energy more the 1019Bev, partially as created other particles, e.g. 1018-1019 protons, neutrons and electrons, etc., is released, all new particles were just “particles” only, and they constitute now the observed Matter.
Besides – if at the Beginning not all Planck particles interacted, then the rest part [near 70%] can exist now as “Dark matter”, etc.
More see at least the Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ,
and the Sec. “3.3 Planck mass particles” in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494
Cheers
Thank you for your papers but I don't understand the role of algorithm here...
Dear Alexey,
“Thank you for your papers but I don't understand the role of algorithm here.”
It seems you indeed have read only the pointed sections, not the papers as a whole; and possibly didn’t read the SS post’s text attentively enough.
The main problem of this thread’s question, and practically all others, though, is in that without understanding on a sufficient level of the main physical items/phenomena that “take part in the problem”, any consideration becomes be based on some guesses, suggestions, etc. which are eventually no more then some ad hoc bare declarations. Including when they obtain status of some theory postulates.
However in such cases considerations in framework of the informational physical model [second linked paper in the SS post above], which follows from the philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception [first linked paper] becomes be much more rational, since in the conception it is rigorously proven that all what exist in our Universe [and outside in the absolutely infinite and absolutely fundamental “Information” Set] is/ are nothing else then some informational patterns/systems of the patterns. Including every material object [particle, body…] is only some informational pattern also.
From this, again, rigorously proven, fact a number of consequences follow, including it becomes be understandable what is the QM principle that all particles of given type are identical [information is unique thing that evidently can be infinitely identically copied], and, from the experimental facts that particles constantly change their internal sates [for example “ Zitterbewegung”] and that they have very stable parameters, follow that these informational patterns are some close-loop algorithms. Besides, because of the informational system “Matter” is based on some set of logical rules and links [just therefore mathematics is so effective in physics] which are principally reversible [therefore the energy conservation law acts], it seems as rather plausible, if particles and antiparticles are mutually reversible algorithms, which constantly run [with frequency ω=mc2/ћ], at that logically particles and antiparticles move in the opposite temporal directions [Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation ], etc.
When possible Planck mass particles are rather interesting algorithms, where particle is antiparticle, so can be only particle. And so Matter at Beginning was already only matter…
More see both linked papers above.
Cheers
Dear Alexey,
Sakharov wrote his work in 1967, which means that this was before the experimental discovery that protons and neutrons are not elementary, but are each made of 3 really elementary charged and massive particles, which was confirmed at the SLAC facility in 1969 after 2 years of colliding protons and neutrons in a non destructive way with electrons energetic enough to enter the proton and neutron structures and be deflected by the inner components.
Since the positron is considered the anti particle of the electron because of their opposite sign charges, we know since 1969 that there is exactly the same number of elementary negative charges as there are elementary positive charges in the universe.
Best Regards
André
Then the question is, where are these antiparticles located in the universe?
Dear Alexey,
In 1928, Dirac defined anti-matter as being elementary particles having opposite electric signs. This is what made him conclude to the existence of the positron with respect to the electron (the positron was discovered shortly after his prediction). This was long before it was understood that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, but "systems of particles", just like the solar system is not a celestial body, but a system of celestial bodies.
When the SLAC accelerator entered in service in 1966, which was the first accelerator to be able to energize electrons sufficiently for them to penetrate inside the volume of the protons and neutrons, they discovered from the scattering patterns that 3 elementary charged and massive particles were their only scatterable inner components, "uud" for the proton and "udd" for the neutron, that are only marginally more massive than the electron.
This is history.
Since they are electrically charged and of opposite electric signs, as defined by Dirac, then the positively signed up quarks are the anti-particle of the negatively signed down quark, just like the positively charged positron is the anti particle of the negatively charged electron.
All in all, you have the electron and the down quark that have negative electric signs, and on the other hand you have the positron and the up quarks as their antiparticles. Counting them even summarily, you can see that they are in approximately equal amounts.
This is the very definition of matter vs anti-matter as defined by Dirac.
So the antimater is not hiding anywhere, it is inside the nucleons of all existing atoms.
Best Regards
André
All atoms have electron shells, but where are atoms with shells from positrons?
“…In 1928, Dirac defined anti-matter as being elementary particles having opposite electric signs…”
that is in certain sense true, when relate to 1928; when there was no any mentions about “antimatter”, that related to indeed only the pair electron/positron, which, on first glance, differ only in that have opposite electric charges.
However after high energy physics discovered a huge number of elementary particles, in contrast to known in 1928 electron and proton, it turned out to be that every particle has antiparticle, which can differ not only by electric charges, but by a number of other charges, e.g. baryon charge, etc. Including, for example electrically neutral neutron and a number of electrically neutral mesons have their electrically neutral antiparticles.
So that
“….Since they are electrically charged and of opposite electric signs, as defined by Dirac, then the positively signed up quarks are the anti-particle of the negatively signed down quark, just like the positively charged positron is the anti particle of the negatively charged electron….”
isn’t correct principally; properties of quarks and properties of leptons [electron and positron here] are fundamentally different since relate to different fundamental Nature forces and in this case there is no any relations, in this sense, what electric charges have quarks and leptons, or they haven’t [neutrinos] electric charges at all.
Including the stable baryons, which constitute near 99.9% of the mass of visible matter in Matter i.e. protons and neutrons, differ from their antiparticles first of all because the first [as that the Standard Model asserts] are constituted from the quarks and antiquarks from antiquarks , when the charges, again, aren’t essential, neutron/antineutron are electrically neutral.
Thus further that
“…So the antimater is not hiding anywhere, it is inside the nucleons of all existing atoms….”
has no any relation to the objective reality.
In the reality [see papers about the informational model that are linked in the SS posts above] every particles are some close-loop algorithms that operate on the “fundamental logical elements hardware”; at that, to conserve energy, the informational system “Matter” is based on some principally reversible logic. Thus the algorithms with direct program order are particles, when the algorithms with reverse order are antiparticles; and both algorithms are seems equally possible, moreover, at interactions when some new particles are created, always these new particles appears as pairs of particles and antiparticles, so the number of particles in Matter, besides seems only the fundamental Nature forces mediators, e.g. photons, remains be constant.
.
At that seems the algorithms of at least practically all elementary particles aren’t symmetrical, and so they indeed differ from antiparticles’ algorithms.
However, returning to this thread’s question, the difference “direct/reverse” becomes be logically senseless for absolutely symmetrical algorithms; and so it is logically permissible if all such particles are “only particles” or “only antiparticles”. When this problem is inessential, of course, for Matter, and for humans, of course, it is the same – is Matter [and humans so] created from particles or antiparticles, that is the problem only of a evident convention.
Cheers
Dear Alexey,
"All atoms have electron shells, but where are atoms with shells from positrons?"
This doesn't exist, nor does it need to.
It was long suspected in the community that the up and down quarks making up the inner scatterable structure of nucleons could be positrons and electrons whose masses and charge characteristics would be warped into these potentially altered states by the stresses imposed by these most energetic least action equilibrium states that these particles can possibly reach in Nature.
If this is the case, then the up quarks are the positrons that seem to be missing.
A possible mechanics of establishment of nucleons from triads of electrons and positrons has been developped:
http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
Best Regards
André
But properties of electrons (positrons) and quarks are very different according to standard model...
Dear Alexey,
"But properties of electrons (positrons) and quarks are very different according to standard model..."
Not according to the SLAC experiments.
Analysis of the SLAC experiments revealed that they are electrically charged like electrons and positrons, because the deflected trajectories of the incident electrons obeyed the same deflection law that governs collisions between two electrons or two positrons, that is, the inverse square Coulomb law.
The deflection patterns also revealed that they behave point-like in all scattering encounters, just like electrons and positrons, which means that they are elementary like electrons and positrons (not made of smaller particles):
It was confirmed also that the up quark is only marginally more massive than the electron and that the down quark is only marginally more massive than the up quark; between 1 and 5 MeV/c2 for the up quark, and between 3 and 10 MeV/c2 for the down quark.
Ref:
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 84th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York. 3003. p. 11-6.
and
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf
So they are very similar to electrons and positrons, except for their charges and masses, and these differences can be explained by the nucleon establishment mechanics previously mentioned.
The standard model is not a good reference to understand the structure of matter, because only 3 stable elementary particles can be identified via scattering in all existing atoms, which are the electron, the up quark and the down quark. None of these other unstable transient states of the standard model were ever identified via scattering inside atoms. They all are produced "outside" atoms and nucleon by destructive scattering, which results in the liberated energy to re-condense momentarily into these transient forms before practically instantly decaying into one or other of the very few stable forms that really exist.
So, all other particles in the Standard Model are then transient states that almost instantly decay to leave behind electrons, protons and neutrons, the latter two being the only existing stable complex particles, whose only internal scatterable and stable components are the up quark and the down quark.
Best Regards
André
“…But properties of electrons (positrons) and quarks are very different according to standard model... But properties of electrons (positrons) and quarks are very different according to standard model...”
yeah; the quarks evidently aren’t “very similar to electrons and positrons”, just because of their charges and masses, and because of that the quarks interact first of all by strong forces as well, when their EM interactions are near 1000 times weaker; what is evidently differ quarks from electrons and positrons.
As well as Matter seems evidently cannot be formed from “electrons and positrons” only, for example besides quarks in Matter there exist neutrinos, which seems quite evidently aren’t some electrons and positrons because of their charges and masses as well, their masses near in million times lesser then electrons’/positrons’ ones, and they have no electric charges.
Besides, quarks in both main Matter’s particles, i.e. in protons and neutrons are quarks, when, correspondingly, in antiprotons and antineutrons, the quarks are antiquarks. Thus again seems as rather evident that the antimatter isn’t “inside the nucleons of all existing atoms”…
Cheers
Dear Sergey,
You wrote: "the quarks interact first of all by strong forces as well, when their EM interactions are near 1000 times weaker;"
Very simple calculation shows that it is not so. EM interaction is of the exact proper strength to explain the energy levels of nucleons:
http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
You also wrote: "besides quarks in Matter there exist neutrinos, which seems quite evidently aren’t some electrons and positrons because of their charges and masses as well, their masses near in million times lesser then electrons’/positrons’ ones, and they have no electric charges."
Yes, their masses is even less than a million times less than that of electrons/positrons. It seems to be exactly zero:
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf
You also wrote: "in protons and neutrons are quarks, when, correspondingly, in antiprotons and antineutrons, the quarks are antiquarks."
Since antiprotons and antineutrons exist for only a few fractions of a second after coming in to being during extremely energetic scattering before decaying to end up as normal matter, like all metastable partons, they have no role to play in the universe, since they cannot be detected inside any of the existing stable atoms.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
You continue to write something that isn’t [and cannot be] exist in Matter, and so wasn’t/isn’t observable experimentally.
The problem “why Matter doesn’t contain antimatter” indeed isn’t solved substantively in physics till now.
Including existent mainstream ideas about some magic “spontaneous breaks of a [next and next] symmetry”, that are based on very exotic cases when at particles reactions/decays some invariance, including CP-invariance is violated, are detected, are rather evidently quite questionable, since the probability of such cases is too low for be a some ground of the observed Matter’s asymmetry.
Thus now there is only possibility to put more reasonable suggestions, and seems as quite rational one, which follows from the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky “The Information as Absolute” conception and following from this conception informational physical model [see the links in the SS posts above]: all particles are some close-loop algorithms, particles and antiparticles are the same algorithms, but which run in a direct and reverse program orders correspondingly, then, if at Beginning only absolutely symmetrical algorithms were created, then logically the state when all primary fundamental particles were only particles is permissible; Matter yet at Creation was without antimatter.
Further at all reactions, when some particles were created at interactions of the primary particles quite necessarily only [“usual”] particles had appeared. More – see links in SS posts above.
When, for example, again – EM interactions of quarks inside, e.g., baryons, are much lesser then the strong forces between quarks, and, what is even more evident, between nucleons inside nuclei: in spite of having the same charge protons in nuclei are in very small distances, they don’t fly in all directions because of the electric repulse, nuclei are mostly stable.
Besides
“…It [neutrino] seems to be exactly zero…”
that isn’t so, [see the informational model], they are fermions, when every fermion obligatorily has some rest mass;
“…they [antiprotons and antineutrons] have no role to play in the universe, since they cannot be detected inside any of the existing stable atoms…”
antiprotons and antineutrons have no role in the universe simply because of in the universe there are practically no antiprotons and antineutrons. If they would be in atoms’ nuclei, then, for example, since the nuclei evidently contain protons and neutrons, the nuclei’ charges would be zero and so there would be no atoms. Etc.
Cheers
Dear Sydney!
Thank you very much for your opinion. I think that your ideas about superluminal communication are interesting.
Alexey
- Badges
- Science topic