B Is there any kind of anti-matter "problem"?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter HomesliceMMA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anti-matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the misconception of an "anti-matter problem" related to the universe's matter and anti-matter balance. Experts argue that the universe may have started with more matter than anti-matter, which explains the existence of matter today despite the potential for annihilation. The initial conditions of the universe remain unknown, making the alleged problem unfounded. The conversation highlights the importance of relying on scientific literature rather than popular science interpretations. Ultimately, the perceived problem is less significant than the broader questions about the universe's origins.
HomesliceMMA
Messages
60
Reaction score
13
I watched a youtube pop-sci program the other day where the host kept talking about there being some anti-matter "problem". Sabine Hossenfelder, Lee Smolin, and at least one other kept trying to tell him there was no problem, but he never seemed to grasp what they were saying.

The alleged "problem" is that if the universe started with an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, it should have all annihiliated, leaving only photons/energy, and no matter. Yet we are here, so obviously there was no such complete annihilation.

The experts main point was that there is no problem at because we don't know the initial conditions, and it could simply be that the initial conditions were such that there was more matter than anti-matter, leaving a bit of matter left over after he annihilation, what we see today.

That makes complete sense to me. Does anyone see a "problem" here? I mean, the fact that there might have been more matter than anti-matter immediately before/at the big bang is not nearly as surprising to me as the fact that there should have been anything at all, either that it came into being out of nothing or that it was there forever. Once you get past the latter "big pills", the fact that what is there was more matter than anti-matter - who cares about that lol?

Thanks!
 
Space news on Phys.org
HomesliceMMA said:
I watched a youtube pop-sci program the other day
This is not a valid basis for PF discussion. You need to look at textbooks or peer-reviewed papers. The scientists you mentioned have published plenty of such on this topic. If you can find such a reference, you can start a new thread based on it.

This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, Orodruin and Bystander
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top