Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Why there is so little antimatter in the universe is not a problem. Here comes the science   (youtube.com) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

389 clicks; posted to STEM » on 05 Dec 2021 at 1:24 PM (24 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



30 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-05 11:30:07 AM  
Ant matter? I see that all the time.
 
2021-12-05 1:36:51 PM  
Sabine is my science dominatrix.
 
2021-12-05 1:54:19 PM  
I generally like her videos, but not this one.

Her stance is effectively, "it just is, and people looking for why are fools".  If you apply that philosophy across all of science... science comes to a dead stop because everything you see you write off as "it just is, no need to figure out why".

Sure, obviously there's more matter than antimatter in the universe.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder why that is, even if all the tools in current physics lack the ability to determine the answer.  It's still a valid question.
 
2021-12-05 2:07:52 PM  
Wouldn't more anti-matter that would violently react with matter be a more of a problem?
 
2021-12-05 2:17:49 PM  

Glorious Golden Ass: Wouldn't more anti-matter that would violently react with matter be a more of a problem?


The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

Since we're here, we know the balance is tilted a bit to one side, and we wonder why.
 
2021-12-05 2:35:45 PM  
The excellent Danish comic named "Egoland" has God admitting that while he of course remembers creating antimatter, he simply forgot where he put it.
 
2021-12-05 2:39:15 PM  

Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.


That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.
 
2021-12-05 2:42:00 PM  
Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?
 
2021-12-05 2:51:17 PM  

Unsung_Hero: I generally like her videos, but not this one.

Her stance is effectively, "it just is, and people looking for why are fools".  If you apply that philosophy across all of science... science comes to a dead stop because everything you see you write off as "it just is, no need to figure out why".

Sure, obviously there's more matter than antimatter in the universe.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder why that is, even if all the tools in current physics lack the ability to determine the answer.  It's still a valid question.


You have misunderstood her. She is NOT uninterested in why the initial ratio was what it was. She is saying that currently accepted theory does not require it to be 1.000000000000000... or anything else. She is saying that setting the ratio to precisely unity is an aesthetic assumption that results in a paradox. What is more she is saying the universe don't care that certain  theoreticians prefer exactly one because they think it is more beautiful and that taking measurements at face value does not result in a paradox. Yes you still need to explain the ratio (especially since she does not like the idea of different universes having different constants or laws), but it is not a paradox that we live in a matter universe because the ratio simply is not one. It is only a paradox if the ratio is one.

/Not all mysteries are paradoxes.

//I do have some differences with her. That it is so close to one and not one is interesting. I also am not willing to simply dismiss the multiverse.
 
2021-12-05 3:18:20 PM  

hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?


No. They have different physical properties.
 
2021-12-05 3:22:18 PM  
There is actually a lot of antimatter. We are made of antimatter. The mystery is there is so little matter.
 
2021-12-05 3:25:02 PM  

Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.


Explain, please?  I want to learn.
 
2021-12-05 3:34:48 PM  

hoyt clagwell: Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.

Explain, please?  I want to learn.


https://www.britannica.com/science/antimatter

https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-matter

https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-energy

Starting place is all we can provide. From there you will have to do digging to get sources that match how well you understand things and work from there
 
2021-12-05 4:01:09 PM  

hoyt clagwell: Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.

Explain, please?  I want to learn.


Antimatter particles interact with regular matter and are influenced by electromagnetic fields. Dark matter doesn't do that, at least not frequently enough for us to ever observe it. We only detect dark matter when there's enough of it in some region of space that we can measure its gravitational influence.
 
2021-12-05 4:39:31 PM  

Erik_Emune: The excellent Danish comic named "Egoland" has God admitting that while he of course remembers creating antimatter, he simply forgot where he put it.


One argument for God is that someone needed to be around to sort the exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter and make sure they were far far away from each other.
 
2021-12-05 4:43:02 PM  

LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.


The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.
 
2021-12-05 4:44:40 PM  
I've got all the anti-matter I need, so fark ya'll...
 
2021-12-05 4:45:55 PM  

Harlee: LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.

The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.


Doesn't matter and antimatter solve that when they aren't separate?
 
2021-12-05 5:24:46 PM  

Jeff5: Harlee: LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.

The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.

Doesn't matter and antimatter solve that when they aren't separate?


That's the point. Theory says that matter and antimatter had to be created in exactly equal amounts, which means it would all have annihilated and we would not be here to wonder about it.

Observation (obviously) shows that we are here, and surrounded by only one kind of matter.

So either their was an initial imbalance that needs to be explained OR there had to be some existing mechanism to separate the two equal but opposite forms of matter.
 
2021-12-05 5:33:06 PM  

Harlee: Jeff5: Harlee: LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.

The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.

Doesn't matter and antimatter solve that when they aren't separate?

That's the point. Theory says that matter and antimatter had to be created in exactly equal amounts, which means it would all have annihilated and we would not be here to wonder about it.

Observation (obviously) shows that we are here, and surrounded by only one kind of matter.

So either their was an initial imbalance that needs to be explained OR there had to be some existing mechanism to separate the two equal but opposite forms of matter.


Obviously, they couldn't get along so their Mommy sent them to their rooms...

Or they didn't come into existence in exact proportions and evenly distributed.
 
2021-12-05 5:37:56 PM  

hoyt clagwell: Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.

Explain, please?  I want to learn.


I recommend watching more of Ms Hossenfelder's YT videos.  She covers many topics, including the nature (to the degree that it is understood) of dark matter and also the nature of quantum particles (and anti-particles).  I find her videos informative and sometimes entertaining.

Unsung_Hero: I generally like her videos, but not this one.

Her stance is effectively, "it just is, and people looking for why are fools".  If you apply that philosophy across all of science... science comes to a dead stop because everything you see you write off as "it just is, no need to figure out why".


I think it is her opinion that this particular issue is moot.  I do like how she is not afraid to criticize aspects of physics research, but this one is the closest I've seen of her almost being mean about it.  In this case I thing she made it pretty clear it's her professional opinion that the truth of matter/antimatter balance is self evident.  It's also pretty clear that others don't agree (or *do* see it as a funding source!).
 
2021-12-05 6:05:16 PM  

lifeslammer: hoyt clagwell: Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.

Explain, please?  I want to learn.

https://www.britannica.com/science/antimatter

https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-matter

https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-energy

Starting place is all we can provide. From there you will have to do digging to get sources that match how well you understand things and work from there


Thanks for links!
 
2021-12-05 6:07:53 PM  

Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Ivo Shandor: hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?

No. They have different physical properties.

Explain, please?  I want to learn.

Antimatter particles interact with regular matter and are influenced by electromagnetic fields. Dark matter doesn't do that, at least not frequently enough for us to ever observe it. We only detect dark matter when there's enough of it in some region of space that we can measure its gravitational influence.


Thanks for explanation.  I have more reading to do (vide supra) and I'm sure my college-level physics from 40 years ago won't be up to this one.
 
2021-12-05 7:08:22 PM  

Unsung_Hero: I generally like her videos, but not this one.

Her stance is effectively, "it just is, and people looking for why are fools".  If you apply that philosophy across all of science... science comes to a dead stop because everything you see you write off as "it just is, no need to figure out why".

Sure, obviously there's more matter than antimatter in the universe.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder why that is, even if all the tools in current physics lack the ability to determine the answer.  It's still a valid question.


There's been a lot of stories in the popular science press that there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. She was pointing out that the theory doesn't predict that and if it did it would be long disproven. That's what she was debunking.
 
2021-12-05 7:12:02 PM  

hoyt clagwell: Is it possible that all the "antimatter that should be out there that we can't find" and all the "dark matter that should be out there that we can't find" are one and the same?


Nope. If there were any measurable amount of antimatter left, the matter-antimatter annihilation signature would be unmistakable. Astronomers keep a very keen eye out for any sign of antimatter annihilation lines, especially 511KeV lines from positron annihilation.

Even if there were antimatter, it feels the EM, weak and strong forces just like normal matter so it would not be dark.

The additional problem with the possibility of diffuse cold clouds of (anti-)hydrogen in intergalactic space (which would legitimately be extremely difficult to unambiguously detect) is that even if they're real, that that's not where DM is found. Observed (via gravitation) DM distributions, such as famously seen in the bullet cluster image, are very strongly peaked at galactic cores. You can't hide normal matter in a hot, dense environment like that.

We have identified 4 fundamental forces with 4 associated charges: strong (color charge), electric (electric charge), weak (weak hypercharge) and gravity (mass "charge").
The DM problem is that 3/4 of mass in the universe appears to have no electric, color or weak hypercharge. This naturally makes it damnably difficult to identify, or even usefully constrain its properties and interactions.

The existence-of-mass problem is that all known quantum interactions conserve the total number of real particles, among other things (such as momentum, angular momentum, energy, charge, ...). Nothing can create an electron (lepton number 1, charge -1e) without creating either a positron (lepton number -1, charge 1e) or some other positively charged particle along with an electron antineutrino (charge 0, lepton # -1). When the universe was born it would have been a cauldron of matter and antimatter particles, but as it cooled they'd have annihilated each other leaving nothing but high energy photons and neutrinos. The fact that this obviously didn't happen means that when the universe's temperature was somewhere between 10^16 and 10^34K, some unknown quantum process occurs that violates this symmetry and left the universe with about 1 billion and 1 matter particles per billion antiparticles.

If we are very lucky this process will occur right at the bottom end of that scale, which can be accessed by realistic particle accelerators. If we're unlucky it occurs at the Grand Unification scale, which is a factor of a quadrillion beyond anything we have any hope of ever accessing.
 
2021-12-05 7:15:09 PM  

Harlee: Jeff5: Harlee: LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.

The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.

Doesn't matter and antimatter solve that when they aren't separate?

That's the point. Theory says that matter and antimatter had to be created in exactly equal amounts, which means it would all have annihilated and we would not be here to wonder about it.

Observation (obviously) shows that we are here, and surrounded by only one kind of matter.

So either their was an initial imbalance that needs to be explained OR there had to be some existing mechanism to separate the two equal but opposite forms of matter.


That was the point of the video, theory doesn't predict that at all.

A lot of people are talking it up as if theory did say that and it seems that they're doing so to get funding.
 
2021-12-05 9:12:50 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Unsung_Hero: I generally like her videos, but not this one.

Her stance is effectively, "it just is, and people looking for why are fools".  If you apply that philosophy across all of science... science comes to a dead stop because everything you see you write off as "it just is, no need to figure out why".

Sure, obviously there's more matter than antimatter in the universe.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder why that is, even if all the tools in current physics lack the ability to determine the answer.  It's still a valid question.

You have misunderstood her. She is NOT uninterested in why the initial ratio was what it was. She is saying that currently accepted theory does not require it to be 1.000000000000000... or anything else. She is saying that setting the ratio to precisely unity is an aesthetic assumption that results in a paradox. What is more she is saying the universe don't care that certain  theoreticians prefer exactly one because they think it is more beautiful and that taking measurements at face value does not result in a paradox. Yes you still need to explain the ratio (especially since she does not like the idea of different universes having different constants or laws), but it is not a paradox that we live in a matter universe because the ratio simply is not one. It is only a paradox if the ratio is one.

/Not all mysteries are paradoxes.

//I do have some differences with her. That it is so close to one and not one is interesting. I also am not willing to simply dismiss the multiverse.


I feel like this explanation ignores the data we have at hand that shows that when you generate matter you always get a matter/antimatter pair, since you need to conserve angular momentum and mass/energy, etc. Or when a matter/antimatter pair annihilate they produce energy, not energy and a bit of matter. So having the ratio be 1 for the beginning is a logical start, and it not being 1 raises a lot of questions. We didn't start out saying the ratio was 15, because there is no data out there that would ever suggest that was a reasonable answer. Also, she didn't say what she thought was the "right" answer, just that the other one was wrong, which left me a bit wanting.
 
2021-12-06 12:03:55 AM  

Jeff5: Harlee: Jeff5: Harlee: LoneVVolf: Unsung_Hero: The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

That's dependent on frame of reference, and assuming that our observable universe is the entirety of a closed system. Our universe could just as easily be a "spin up" quantum entangled particle flying down some alien's cyclotron next to a "spin down" particle whose inhabitants are wondering the same question (considering their matter to be normal, and traces of our matter to be anti-matter). The big bang in that scenario would have been the impact that spawned our respective particles.

The big question being, what (or Who) sorted the matter and antimatter into separate clumps.

Doesn't matter and antimatter solve that when they aren't separate?

That's the point. Theory says that matter and antimatter had to be created in exactly equal amounts, which means it would all have annihilated and we would not be here to wonder about it.

Observation (obviously) shows that we are here, and surrounded by only one kind of matter.

So either their was an initial imbalance that needs to be explained OR there had to be some existing mechanism to separate the two equal but opposite forms of matter.

Obviously, they couldn't get along so their Mommy sent them to their rooms...

Or they didn't come into existence in exact proportions and evenly distributed.


That's my thought. Even if the particles were generated in even numbers, nothing requires them to be distributed evenly and slowly enough to fall back into each other to annihilate.

Assuming an unbalanced distribution the big question is how did so much matter get generated in big enough pockets without being annihilated? This implies some/much of the anti matter is going somewhere else. So where is that?

The universe doesn't appear to be a closed system... As far as well can tell entropy implies a changed amount of net energy in the universe. We can only measure it when it's bound, but bound doesn't necessitate closed.
 
2021-12-06 2:34:20 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Glorious Golden Ass: Wouldn't more anti-matter that would violently react with matter be a more of a problem?

The starting assumption seems to remain, "There was nothing, then there was something. It seems the logical that the average amount of [x] has to remain 'nothing', so if there's a positive something there should be an equal negative amount of it to keep the balance sheet even."

And if that were actually true, it would be a huge problem because an equal amount of matter and anti-matter means all those pairs of particles touch each other and collapse into massive amounts of EM radiation instead of friendly matter than can build things like stars, planets, and people.

Since we're here, we know the balance is tilted a bit to one side, and we wonder why.


Alternate dimensions I would assume. Matter on the quantum level can phase in and out of our reality.
 
2021-12-06 2:58:28 AM  

Harlee: Erik_Emune: The excellent Danish comic named "Egoland" has God admitting that while he of course remembers creating antimatter, he simply forgot where he put it.

One argument for God is that someone needed to be around to sort the exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter and make sure they were far far away from each other.


If God did that, why couldn't he also sort it to make sure antivaxxers were far far away from sane people?
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.