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

[Catastrophe]

When you think of an answer you imply positive towards some thing and negative towards others there is some balance in most minds . on matter of positive and negative.
your mind is space as an example based in positive and negative answers yet it is still bound by other energies holding it in place. each mind is different as space is all different.

It is all very well saying + combines with -. That is a vast oversimplification.

We have explored in other threads that + has to reach - for this to happen.
Especially with an expanding Universe + and - separate very rapidly. After the 'first rush' when there are lots of each around, it takes longer to link up. In Chemistry we call it Reaction Kinetics. Nothing new under the Sun, is there?
The last matter and anti-matter may never find each other.

 

[sunstance]

ok you got me our universe is on a bed of dead creatures that are calcium based and the reaction are forcing positive and negative dischargers through the universe. we are just one of six universes in this crater (nest) of a creature

 

[Catastrophe]

Thank you for the dialogue.

 

[Jacob]

From all of our evidence, we can see that the only outcome of the conditions of the Big Bang was equal amounts of antimatter and matter created. What happens when these equal amounts were created? Well, what happens when antiparticles and particles collide? They destroy each other. Completely and literally annihilated. This is our knowledge of this confusing topic.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but do we actually know anything about dark matter or dark energy except that there seems to be a gravitational attraction?

It seems, Catastrophe, that you have summed it up very precisely and directly.

How can you have a theory about an intellectual merry-go-round?

Yes this topic is very confusing, and man does not know a lot about this. We can theorize all we want, but unless we can discover more about antimatter/dark matter/dark energy, we cannot say anything for certain. It is clear that man has a very limited knowledge of the universe. We are just a small speck in a vast expanse of space. And we supposedly happened by chance? The odds are too low. Far too low.

 

[Catastrophe]

I am sure we all intend to abide by the rules of this forum. I do.

"And we supposedly happened by chance? The odds are too low. Far too low.?"
My belief is that we came about by the process proposed by science. Little by little we kept improvements because these favoured survival, and weaknesses decreased this characteristic, and so were dropped.

"This is our knowledge of this confusing topic." It is only part of our knowledge. Would I be right in thinking you are not a chemist? There is a very important subject called reaction kinetics. It has to do with how long things take to happen. The more you react, the fewer reactants remain, and the longer they take to contact each other. + and - may eventually cancel each other out, but it may take until infinity to happen. This is especially the case in an expanding Universe when the + and - are separating at an ever increasing rate.

By the way, returning to your premise:
"From all of our evidence, we can see that the only outcome of the conditions of the Big Bang was equal amounts of antimatter and matter created."

What is this evidence? I was under the impression that theory accepted that an inequality. Whatever, it does not affect my above appraisal. Also, use of the word 'created' is an unnecessary anthropomorphism.

 

[IG2007]

You know, I believe that we are here only due to the randomness of matter and particle. We don't yet perfectly know what is life? Nor do we know much about the universe. We are still in the process, rather say beginning. The beginning of the infinite venture of mankind towards the unknown.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG you are really a philosopher!

 

[dfjchem721]

I am sure we all intend to abide by the rules of this forum. I do.

"And we supposedly happened by chance? The odds are too low. Far too low.?"
My belief is that we came about by the process proposed by science. Little by little we kept improvements because these favoured survival, and weaknesses decreased this characteristic, and so were dropped.

"This is our knowledge of this confusing topic." It is only part of our knowledge. Would I be right in thinking you are not a chemist? There is a very important subject called reaction kinetics. It has to do with how long things take to happen. The more you react, the fewer reactants remain, and the longer they take to contact each other. + and - may eventually cancel each other out, but it may take until infinity to happen. This is especially the case in an expanding Universe when the + and - are separating at an ever increasing rate.

By the way, returning to your premise:
"From all of our evidence, we can see that the only outcome of the conditions of the Big Bang was equal amounts of antimatter and matter created."

What is this evidence? I was under the impression that theory accepted that an inequality. Whatever, it does not affect my above appraisal. Also, use of the word 'created' is an unnecessary anthropomorphism.

At first I was going to ask why you keep beating a dead horse, but then realized what the topic is and had to reword it. Are you still beating a baryon asymmetry?

There seems no end to this one.........

 

[Catastrophe]

You do have a point.

 

[Jacob]

I first thought that there was no asymmetry between matter and antimatter, but there is some. See the link below.
Why is there more matter than antimatter?
The amount of asymmetry is obviously not high enough to explain the matter/antimatter unbalance. That is obvious from what we know.

As the above link says, "This is arguably the most profound question there is and one that may seem completely outside the scope of particle physics." There will have to be many more discoveries before the Big Bang Theory will be able to explain why we exist.

 

[Catastrophe]

"The amount of asymmetry is obviously not high enough to explain the matter/antimatter unbalance."
Which in simple English means "is not big enough to be big enough" or
The difference in size is not sizeable enough to explain the size difference.
Well, you can't argue with that!

To be serious, I have already shown here that, as happens with chemical reactions, it is not only the proportions of two self-neutralising components which matters. Of at least equal (and in the case of the Expanding Universe, infinitely greater) importance is the rate of neutralisation.
To first simplify the question, if the last piece of matter and the last piece of antimatter are flying apart at a speed proportional to their distance apart, they will never meet. And in the Universe this size neither will an almost infinite number of other particles and antiparticles over a wide compositional range.

You cannot compare the Universe with a test tube.

Please see Post #5 of this very thread.

 

[Jacob]

According to post #5, you said, "

Purely by chance distribution, one or the other may gain superiority.

I believe that "chance distribution" should be distributed evenly. Am I right? I do know that the Big Bang Theory says that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Do this not also apply to antimatter and matter?

 

[Catastrophe]

"I believe that "chance distribution" should be distributed evenly. Am I right?"
Is that an oxymoron? Are not "chance" and "evenly" self contradictory?
At least there are anthropomorphic undertones.

"Big Bang Theory says that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic"
You are talking about the Cosmological Principle, which only applies on a very large scale.

Wiki gives:
"In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang."
My emphasis.

" Do [sic] this not also apply to antimatter and matter?"
"Our universe could be the mirror image of an antimatter universe extending backwards in time before the Big Bang. So claim physicists in Canada, who have devised a new cosmological model positing the existence of an “antiuniverse” which, paired to our own, preserves a fundamental rule of physics called CPT symmetry. The researchers still need to work out many details of their theory, but they say it naturally explains the existence of dark matter."

"Charge, parity, and time reversal symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under the simultaneous transformations of charge conjugation (C), parity transformation (P), and time reversal (T). CPT is the only combination of C, P, and T that is observed to be an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level."

In other words, you are in very theoretical territory which does not merit the certitude with which you seem to wish to dignify it.

As a matter of perhaps some interest, where are you trying to lead this in relation to the title? You may be stretching the patience of those in charge here?

I would guess that trying to apply the Cosmological Principle to some obscure life form would be taken as invalid.

Had you quoted me in full:
" Purely by chance distribution, one or the other may gain superiority. In any small location it may seem as if the battle is over, but beware, there may be some of the enemy lurking just around the corner¬
As stated above, the Universe is a very large place."
. . . . . . . . . you might have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[IG2007]

"The amount of asymmetry is obviously not high enough to explain the matter/antimatter unbalance."
Which in simple English means "is not big enough to be big enough" or
The difference in size is not sizeable enough to explain the size difference.
Well, you can't argue with that!

That is what my simple logic tells me! The difference is not big enough to be big enough! This is the thing that makes me feel that the baryon asymmetry theory is absolutely wrong! This is what makes me feel that my proposed theories in my posts are right!

 

[Catastrophe]

IG The point is the baryon asymmetry theory really does not matter a jot, at least in this context. Complete pairing can never happen now whatever the degree of asymmetry. We are here whatever the +/- ratio. Ergo we exist whatever it was to begin with. END OF SUBJECT as far as this thread is concerned.

Post #1 concluded:
"If the matter and antimatter were symmetric, they would have annihilated everything, but they have not. Because, we still exist. So, how come matter and antimatter did not annihilate each other?"

I have shown that + and - could never completely pair.

em raises his eyes unto the hills looking for a little padlock sign in the clouds.

 

[Catastrophe]

If we are going to continue with this baryonic conflict, how about this?
"Since the big bang, the universe has swollen like a freshly formed raisin roll put in a warm place to rise. Until recently, it was thought that this increase in size was occurring evenly in all directions, as with a good yeast dough. Astrophysicists call this “isotropy”. Many calculations on the fundamental properties of the universe are based on this assumption. It is possible that they are all wrong – or at least, inaccurate – thanks to compelling observations and analyses of the scientists from the Universities of Bonn and Harvard."

 

[COLGeek]

For those of you that understand the "jump the shark" reference, this thread has run its course. Closing now. Thank you.