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

[IG2007]

This is a very debated question. We all know that for every quark there is an antiquark, for every electron there is a positron and so on. There are various theories on this. I have a different opinion on this, I think I can solve it by using General Relativity and it has an easy logic. But still, what are your opinions?

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?

 

[Wolfshadw]

Because matter and anti-matter were not symmetric. This is pretty much the consensus of every science show I've watched over the last five years. We don't know why.

-Wolf sends

 

[Catastrophe]

They were not and we do exist

 

[dfjchem721]

One possible answer:

Matter and anti-matter were formed in equal quantities but annihilation was not complete for unknown reason(s).

The remaining antimatter is either still out there, or it was converted into something else which caused the asymmetry. Any conversion(s) must have occurred during or slightly before annihilation commenced.

The above assumes of course that lack of complete annihilation violates those BB theories which require it, which appears to be the theme of this thread. (It could be a trick question!)

Big Bang "mechanics" for such theories simply cannot be accurate due to this "baryon asymmetry".

 

[Catastrophe]

There may be still another answer. Pardon the analogy but it is actually based on chemical kinetics.

Through this remember the Universe is a very large place.

OK lets think of equal numbers of mater and anti-matter - call them plus and minus for short. So we have an army of equal numbers of plus and minus. There are local concnetrations of + and -- minus. Where local concentrations of + and -- exist, they neutralise each other. 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.
Maybe at the start of the battle, there was a big hole through which it was possible for the armies to selectively escape.

The Universe is a very large place - maybe the battle is still on.

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

Cat notes "The Universe is a very large place."

We then assume the +/- armies have dispersed and have not yet completed annihilation. It would seem that the highest probability for annihilation is at the start - maximum density - and the chances drop exponentially(?) as the universe expands. With this concept, if it hasn't happened yet, it likely won't, or be very slow. These would now have to be limited to local skirmishes and no big battles since there should be not be high concentrations of it around, just like matter today, but even less since antimatter lost the first Big Battle in the Big Bang.


However, your idea could be the answer. I have read that NASA is looking for the gamma signature for this in colliding super-clusters. The theory goes, as noted above, if antimatter is still out there, you will most likely find it in the highest densities of matter still visible for such observations. And that should be super-clusters mashing into each other.

Below is only one source on the topic I picked out a search (there are many others)>

This is a rough PDF - someone photocopied and provided to the public, it would appear:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900014007.pdf

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat notes "The Universe is a very large place."

We then assume the +/- armies have dispersed and have not yet completed annihilation. It would seem that the highest probability for annihilation is at the start - maximum density - and the chances drop exponentially(?) as the universe expands. With this concept, if it hasn't happened yet, it likely won't, or be very slow. These would now have to be limited to local skirmishes and no big battles since there should be not be high concentrations of it around, just like matter today, but even less since antimatter lost the first Big Battle in the Big Bang.


However, your idea could be the answer. I have read that NASA is looking for the gamma signature for this in colliding super-clusters. The theory goes, as noted above, if antimatter is still out there, you will most likely find it in the highest densities of matter still visible for such observations. And that should be super-clusters mashing into each other.

Below is only one source on the topic I picked out a search (there are many others)>

This is a rough PDF - someone photocopied and provided to the public, it would appear:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900014007.pdf

Yes. Not the best quality and with that wonderful colour that even smells age.

Would you care to provide a 5 line summary?
I couldn't actually reach the bottom to see if there was one (as opposed to were)

 

[Catastrophe]

What I am suggesting d-chem is that we are in such a tiny part of the Universe that our estimation of + / = is not necessarily representative of that of the entire Universe.

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

It is from 1990, but that is one thing people are still looking at. General Relativity came out over 100 years ago, and is has not been treated badly due to age. It took time for people to gain good observations of its "features". Let me see what else I can find. This approach is constrained by our limits of detection. There is not a lot of interest in this stuff.

Just trying to give you a hand, my good man!

 

[Catastrophe]

"It would seem that the highest probability for annihilation is at the start - maximum density - and the chances drop exponentially(?) as the universe expands"

Yes, and Wheee! As the Universe expands . . . . . . . . .
I hadn't thought of that! More volume less concentration slower reaction time . . . . . .. . . .. approaching infinity or infinite dilution.

 

[Catastrophe]

A hand would be most welcome, thank you. I'll give you a minute to catch up.

 

[dfjchem721]

Here is a newer link to the same topic, also from NASA. Again, all of this is detection limited. As Cat says, it may be localized and not close enough to us to detect :

NASA - Searching for Primordial Antimatter

I hope you like it better.

And there is the notion that there are antimatter galaxies out there. How could we tell them apart. Some claim that you cannot. Another reason to look for these in colliding galaxies.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, I tried but it is 50% wider than my screen with no option to fit to screen or similar.

I did notice the e = mc2 and thought that if m + antimatter m anti matter mix then substitute this and you get e = (0)c2 or the mixing of + / - anti/matter is zero.

Well, I am sure 100 people will jump to point out my error.

 

[IG2007]

I have my own theory, which I think is right. What does General Relativity teach us?

It teaches us that matter(that has mass) bends light and space in a convex kind of way. And that creates gravity. Anything that has not got mass, like photons, do not have gravity and do not bend space.

Now, if General Relativity is right. Then, anything that has negative mass (antimatter) shall bend space in a concave way. And, that shall create antigravity (no kidding, although I am a kid, lol). This means that matter has gravity and antimatter has antigravity. I don't know whether that makes sense theoretically but my logic says so.

Now, I think that this mystery is behind every mystery, if we can solve this mystery of matter and antimatter, we can solve huge mysteries of dark matter and dark energy.

Due to the Big Bang, a tremendous amount of energy was released and due to that a majority of matter and antimatter were annihilated, withstanding the nullyfing effects of matter and antimatter. After some time, the antigravity and gravity of antimatter and matter started to show their effects. The annihilated antimatter changed into dark matter (what we see even today) and the annihilated matter changed into pure electromagnetic radiation or light.

This led to the foundation of our universe and what we see today. And, let me say about dark energy. I think that I know why the dark energy is always the same. Because, the un-annihilated antimatter which was left did have antigravity and did repulse. The antimatter is still there in the universe which we can't see because light cannot reach it's surface due to antigravity. And this antimatter is causing dark energy and that is why the universe is expanding.

 

[IG2007]

I know that many people will ridicule my idea. But, I have faith in my own ideas. And, I will try to defeat them in any debate with my logic.

 

[Monikeswari]

I think there is no equal amount of matter and antimatter in universe . So , that's why we exist

 

[Catastrophe]

I know that many people will ridicule my idea. But, I have faith in my own ideas. And, I will try to defeat them in any debate with my logic.

Indian Genius here is something maybe we both can learn from.
Please put your proposal succinctly.

 

[dfjchem721]

These theories and notions about the BB are like something out of thermodynamics with a major twist:

They can always be created and never destroyed.

 

[IG2007]

Indian Genius here is something maybe we both can learn from.
Please put your proposal succinctly.

I mean to say that matter has positive mass. Which means it creates something like this in space:

While anything with no mass at all creates no curve in space, like photons. And antimatter will do exactly the opposite of matter. Matter creates a convex curve, like the image above. Antimatter creates a concave curve in space, just the opposite of matter, like this

So, it will have antigravity or a force of repulsion.

I think that because of the initial energy of big bang, the majority of antimatter and matter particles had annihilated as they couldn't withstand the energy of big bang and they moving randomnly in space. After some time, the matter and antimatter became quite stable and there was enough matter left to make a universe like ours. And the annihilated antimatter became dark matter. And, the antimatter which was not annihilated remained so in space. We cannot see them because they repulse light, and it cannot hit it's surface. And, this is dark energy. This is giving the ever-constant energy that is expanding our universe, the force of repulsion or antigravity of antimatter.

If you can find out some mistakes in my theory, please point it out.

These theories and notions about the BB are like something out of thermodynamics with a major twist:

They can always be created and never destroyed.

No, the first law of thermodynamics is perfectly right. Just the thing is, now. It is right now, not at time 0, the moment of big bang. Matter has been created for only one time in the past in our universe, and will not do so again in the future.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yeah, well we understand the Relativity stuff.
I did not like:
"the majority of antimatter and matter particles had annihilated"
as you will have seen from posts elsewhere. Do you want to clear up this point before proceeding?
Apart from that, I would still like to see a succinct reply.
Cat.

 

[Catastrophe]

That is a major part of the problem. Created.
Implies summit dun' it.
"Came into being" is a better way of putting it, but then it implies something existed before it came into being.
"Continued existence" is nicer still. Then someone will ask if it continued, from what did it continue?
Where was I? Oh yes, that succinct answer.
No hurry.

 

[IG2007]

Yeah, well we understand the Relativity stuff.
I did not like:
"the majority of antimatter and matter particles had annihilated"
as you will have seen from posts elsewhere. Do you want to clear up this point before proceeding?
Apart from that, I would still like to see a succinct reply.
Cat.

Ok, according to wikipedia, "Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density."

Ok, so about 85% of matter and antimatter were annihilated. And, the dark matter had decayed and is decaying along time, which antimatter(/dark energy/ the constant expanding energy of the universe in my theory) had not.

 

[Catastrophe]

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?
Something is there because it mucks up gravity. Let's call it dark matter. That dark matter seems to have a gravitational attraction - that's strange, let's investigate it. Round and round.

How can you have a theory about an intellectual merry-go-round? What does (I am being serious) your theory add to the
intellectual merry-go-round?

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

Indian Genius, at least you are happy using Wiki. Some have trashed on me for this. As a biochemist, I have reviewed over 200 "articles" and found few errors, none of any significance. To those who trash on it, be advised it is an excellent source for references that can beat a google search hands down.

So, does your theory satisfy the Sakharov conditions?

If not, why not?, and if the good professor was wrong, please explain that. No worries, your theory can never be destroyed!

From Wiki's link on Baryon asymmetry* :

""In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries (at that time) of the cosmic background radiation and CP violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary "Sakharov conditions" are:

- Baryon number B violation.

- C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.

- Interactions out of thermal equilibrium. ""

end quote.

Andrei Sakharov was a very clever guy!

I will admit that some of these conditions are not easy to understand, and probably even more difficult to interpret for any one model. Of course you can simply dispose of them with a wave of the hand. Was just wondering if you know about these, and if your theory is in compliance. And if not, why not?


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry#Baryon_asymmetry_parameter


( This is one of those topics where I know enough to be dangerous! )

 

[IG2007]

Indian Genius, at least you are happy using Wiki. Some have trashed on me for this. As a biochemist, I have reviewed over 200 "articles" and found few errors, none of any significance. To those who trash on it, be advised it is an excellent source for references that can beat a google search hands down.

So, does your theory satisfy the Sakharov conditions?

If not, why not?, and if the good professor was wrong, please explain that. No worries, your theory can never be destroyed!

From Wiki's link on Baryon asymmetry* :

""In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries (at that time) of the cosmic background radiation and CP violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary "Sakharov conditions" are:

- Baryon number B violation.

- C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.

- Interactions out of thermal equilibrium. ""

end quote.

Andrei Sakharov was a very clever guy!

I will admit that some of these conditions are not easy to understand, and probably even more difficult to interpret for any one model. Of course you can simply dispose of them with a wave of the hand. Was just wondering if you know about these, and if your theory is in compliance. And if not, why not?


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry#Baryon_asymmetry_parameter


( This is one of those topics where I know enough to be dangerous! )

Dear sir chem, I quite know them. But, I don't like them. I think that there should be a more simple theory for it which can be achieved by General Relativity not Quantum Mechanics.

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?
Something is there because it mucks up gravity. Let's call it dark matter. That dark matter seems to have a gravitational attraction - that's strange, let's investigate it. Round and round.

How can you have a theory about an intellectual merry-go-round? What does (I am being serious) your theory add to the
intellectual merry-go-round?

Cat

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.