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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-12-05 1:54:19 PM  
7 votes:
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 2:51:17 PM  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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 4:01:09 PM  
5 votes:

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 1:36:51 PM  
4 votes:
Sabine is my science dominatrix.
 
2021-12-05 2:17:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 3:22:18 PM  
2 votes:
There is actually a lot of antimatter. We are made of antimatter. The mystery is there is so little matter.
 
2021-12-05 7:12:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:39:15 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:34:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:45:55 PM  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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 7:08:22 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 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.