Question If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?

[Catastrophe]

"Good question, sir. That is surreal actually. That dark matter seems to have gravity. My theory adds nothing to the theory of the merry-go-round. It just gives an history of it."

In science we are looking for theories which add to scientific knowledge - not to embellish history

 

[IG2007]

"Good question, sir. That is surreal actually. That dark matter seems to have gravity. My theory adds nothing to the theory of the merry-go-round. It just gives an history of it."

In science we are looking for theories which add to scientific knowledge - not to embellish history

Sorry, sir. But, Wikipedia defines Cosmology as "a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. "
This question is a part of Cosmology and Physical Cosmology. You can say that this is a theory. You can work it out by formulae. You can think in two perspectives, first that this is a theory which can be worked out by formulae, second that this is a part of the history of the universe.

Being a part of history does not mean it is not a fact or theory.

 

[dfjchem721]

Indian Genius says "I think that there should be a more simple theory" to baryon asymmetry.

We would all like things to be more simple. Sadly, they are often not.

Try suggesting that things could be more simple when addressing the abiotic origin of life from inanimate chemicals. We would all love that to be more simple (except by invoking god(s). Well, most of us anyway.

There are things in science that are very simple to understand, like "spontaneous combustion", an endothermic process:

From Wiki - It "is a type of combustion which occurs by self-heating (increase in temperature due to exothermic internal reactions), followed by thermal runaway (self heating which rapidly accelerates to high temperatures) and finally, autoignition."

Now even a simpleton (or at least most of them) should be able to understand this because, well, it is very simple. Something tells me that baryon asymmetry is no where near as simple as some might hope. More than likely the core physics is very complex to understand, and most people simply cannot deal with it. This is not an uncommon aspect in the sciences.

Something tells me if it were that simple, we would not be debating it. But why not? - who needs to deal with those pesky "Sakharov conditions" anyway?!.

 

[IG2007]

Indian Genius says "I think that there should be a more simple theory" to baryon asymmetry.

We would all like things to be more simple. Sadly, they are often not.

Try suggesting that things could be more simple when addressing the abiotic origin of life from inanimate chemicals. We would all love that to be more simple (except by invoking god(s). Well, most of us anyway.

There are things in science that are very simple to understand, like "spontaneous combustion", an endothermic process:

From Wiki - It "is a type of combustion which occurs by self-heating (increase in temperature due to exothermic internal reactions), followed by thermal runaway (self heating which rapidly accelerates to high temperatures) and finally, autoignition."

Now even a simpleton (or at least most of them) should be able to understand this because, well, it is very simple. Something tells me that baryon asymmetry is no where near as simple as some might hope. More than likely the core physics is very complex to understand, and most people simply cannot deal with it. This is not an uncommon aspect in the sciences.

Something tells me if it were that simple, we would not be debating it. But why not? - who needs to deal with those pesky "Sakharov conditions" anyway?!.

Don't you understand that everything in the universe is simple. It just depends on your perspective. Look, if I knew formulae and others thing which top physicists of the world knew. Maybe, I would have had proved my theory right at this moment. But, as I don't, I don't have the right to say that baryon symmetry is wrong.

But, as both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are foundations of Physics, and both are quite debated. I believe that if something can be defined by Quantum Mechanics, the same thing can also be defined by General Relativity. At least, my logic says so.

Look, we all know what is time. But at the same time, we do not know what is time. You can say that combustion is pretty simple, like "who doesn't know burning?" But, if you come to Physics, it is really really complex.

There is a difference between Law and Theory. Like, Theory of Relativity is still a theory because there are evidences both against and with it. And, Newton's Laws are laws because they have been proved several times and there is no evidence against it. The Sakharov conditions are theories, not laws. So, I can just tell that is wrong by putting up logic and vice versa.

PS : It all depends on your perspective of everything.

 

[Catastrophe]

Sorry, sir. But, Wikipedia defines Cosmology as "a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. "
This question is a part of Cosmology and Physical Cosmology. You can say that this is a theory. You can work it out by formulae. You can think in two perspectives, first that this is a theory which can be worked out by formulae, second that this is a part of the history of the universe.

Being a part of history does not mean it is not a fact or theory.

In science we are looking for theories which add to scientific knowledge - not to embellish history

 

[Catastrophe]

Science by its very essence has to do with facts.

"Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

It is well known that history is written by the conquerors and is thus only to do with their wishes in communication, and nothing necessarily whatsoever to do with facts.

 

[Catastrophe]

We should remind ourselves of the title of this thread:

If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?

 

[dfjchem721]

Cat, you shouldn't be so pesky with this insistence on facts and such.

What has come over you?!

Thanks for the Latin on science. I had never heard that in all my years in the biz. But, except for biochemistry, I have never been good with foreign languages.

 

[dfjchem721]

So let's get back to basic science then. We are in need of simplicity here.

Can someone kindly supply a simple explanation for the "Sakharov conditions", a requirement generally accepted by most cosmologists looking for an explanation of baryon asymmetry?

Obviously I am confessing to an inability to simplify it. (You have to know it very well to do that!) I am still working on the K-meson issue before going to the heavy parts.

Recalling the Sakharov conditions :

- Baryon number B violation.

- C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.

- Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.


Just a short paragraph or two would be very kind for someone to provide. Just so long as it is accurate and factual as best that can be managed..

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, you shouldn't be so pesky with this insistence on facts and such.

What has come over you?!

Thanks for the Latin on science. I had never heard that in all my years in the biz. But, except for biochemistry, I have never been good with foreign languages.

Come on! That was not propelled in a scientific direction, if you understand me?

 

[Catastrophe]

My apologies for being off topic in stating that I am having some trouble with by laptop keyboard. I press the key to reply and believe it has gone, only to find sometime later that it is still awaiting dispatch.

 

[dfjchem721]

Cat noted: Come on! That was not propelled in a scientific direction, if you understand me?

Laws of physics clearly allow for directional variations. I had to use thrusters to alter trajectory to my satisfaction. Directional issues can be very confusing, espcially with such simplistic terminology!

 

[Catastrophe]

So let's get back to basic science then. We are in need of simplicity here.

Can someone kindly supply a simple explanation for the "Sakharov conditions", a requirement generally accepted by most cosmologists looking for an explanation of baryon asymmetry?

Obviously I am confessing to an inability to simplify it. (You have to know it very well to do that!) I am still working on the K-meson issue before going to the heavy parts.

Recalling the Sakharov conditions :

- Baryon number B violation.

- C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.

- Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.


Just a short paragraph or two would be very kind for someone to provide. Just so long as it is accurate and factual as best that can be managed..

Sorry to disappoint you but I have never come across the Sakharov conditions. Even after searching, and finding the following
Abstract
Perhaps the most convincing motivation for requiring an explanation for the BAU is the fact that inflation, a cornerstone of modern cosmology, will wash out any initial BAU. Before inflation was proposed, however, Sakharov proposed that any explanation of the BAU must satisfy three conditions, now famously known as the 'Sakharov conditions'.
I am still none the wiser.
Cat

Perhaps I should go and find what BAU is?

 

[Catastrophe]

Oh is it called that (+ / -) asymmetry? I had never heard that.

"Sakharov conditions" = baryon asymmetry

 

[IG2007]

Oh is it called that (+ / -) asymmetry? I had never heard that.

"Sakharov conditions" = baryon asymmetry

I do not believe in baryon asymmetry. I believe it's quite complex and can not be defined easily. And, if something cannot be defined easily, it is possible that it is wrong. Like in early days of defining gravity, many people told many complex things. But, Einstein proved them all wrong and gave a simple theory of Universal Gravitation.

PS: Why don't I know formulae!

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dark matter exists everywhere and leads to creation of Matter or ordinary energy ( m and e - both are interconvertible)
In my theory hopefully to be published within this year there is no need for Big Bang and all known categories of particles can be derived.
I am still working hard to relate the dark energy (could be an artifact related to return of matter to darkmatter).

Regards
Dr. Ravi Sharma
<<Email address removed by Moderator>>
http://www.linkedIn.com/in/drravisharma
Check my thesis link on LinkedIn for my work on Particle Physics.

 

[dfjchem721]

Cat, you might be on a fool's errand to look up anymore of this stuff. We have "experts" out there who say the Sakharov Conditions no longer need to be met, because of one or another theory. Appears to be the simplistic approach - supporting the notion that things are not as complex as some think. Clearly in favor of Indian Genius .

However, in order to favor Indian Genius , such variations in BB theories which evade Sakharov Conditions are not more complex than the good professor's conditions. This is far from certain. Big Bang theories, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Beware of those hawking BBs that violate old theories. These new ones are often wrong and the old ones hold up. Einstein and Darwin come to mind. Neither of the two have simple explanations, by the way.

Others say nonsense, Sakharov Conditions are still in play (from the people who thrive on complexity, one might imagine).

It just confirms my previous suspicions.

Overwhelming evidence now supports my overly presumptuous declaration of the "Law of The Big Bang" :

Big Bang theories can be created at any time and never destroyed.


(one cannot disprove a negative)

 

[Catastrophe]

Glad to be back on topic again.
"I do not believe in baryon asymmetry"
Was that double negative intended?
Ergo you do believe in symmetry
Symmetry being + = - (matter same concentration as anti-matter.

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, you might be on a fool's errand to look up anymore of this stuff. We have "experts" out there who say the Sakharov Conditions no longer need to be met, because of one or another theory. Appears to be the simplistic approach - supporting the notion that things are not as complex as some think. Clearly in favor of Indian Genius.

Others say nonsense, it is still in play (from the people who thrive on complexity).

It just confirms my previous suspicions.

Overwhelming evidence now supports my overly presumptuous declaration of the "Law of The Big Bang" :

Big Bang theories can be created by anyone and never destroyed.

What happened to that letter conversation thing?
Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?"

Easy question. The Universe is so 'large' (even call it endless ) and so extensive in 'time' (some call it endless) that each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of matter has not yet nullified each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of anti-matter and with the expansion of the Universe probably never will.

 

[Catastrophe]

From Cat: "What happened to that letter conversation thing?"

You need to be more specific. I am not so good at getting cryptic messages.

Tap that envelope looking thing next to the bell.

 

[dfjchem721]

"If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?"

Easy question. The Universe is so 'large' (even call it endless ) and so extensive in 'time' (some call it endless) that each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of matter has not yet nullified each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of anti-matter and with the expansion of the Universe probably never will.

This has more probability than many other concepts I have read about. Certainly in the top five.

The "dilution" of matter and remaining antimatter by expanding space makes annihilation more unlikely with each passing moment in time. Certainly.

Everyone should note that some experts in this field have been given time on our top gamma telescopes to look for this, cat. They would never have gotten such precious time if it were not a reasonable theory.

You can take that one to the bank, my friend!

 

[Catastrophe]

From Cat: "What happened to that letter conversation thing?"

You need to be more specific. I am not so good at getting cryptic messages.

Now I got two messages saying tap that letter looking thing

 

[Catastrophe]

This has more probability than many other concepts I have read about. Certainly in the top five.

The "dilution" of matter and remaining antimatter by expanding space makes annihilation more unlikely with each passing moment in time. Certainly.

Everyone should note that some experts in this field have been given time on our top gamma telescopes to look for this, cat. They would never have gotten such precious time if it were not a reasonable theory.

You can take that one to the bank, my friend!

Thank you. I have registered my intellectual property rights.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Found this article I don't think anybody posted:

Antimatter Discovery Reveals Clues about the Universe’s Beginning

New evidence from neutrinos points to one of several theories about why the cosmos is made of matter and not antimatter

Antimatter Discovery Reveals Clues about the Universe's Beginning

New evidence from neutrinos points to one of several theories about why the cosmos is made of matter and not antimatter

www.scientificamerican.com

In the beginning, there was matter and antimatter, and then there was only matter. Why? This question is one of the defining mysteries of physics. For decades theorists have come up with potential solutions, most involving the existence of extra particles beyond the known species in the universe. Last week scientists announced tantalizing findings that point toward one possible solution, but the data fall short of a definitive discovery. Whatever the final answer is, resolving the question may tell us more than just why we live in a universe of matter—it could expose secrets from the earliest epochs of the cosmos or even connect us to the invisible dark matter that eludes scientists.