Before I knew how everything worked, I believed that the reason there was more matter than anti-matter, was because at the birth of the universe there was an equal amount of matter/anti-matter, but because they would collide and explode, a huge amount of energy would be released, and I had just learned that energy=matter, so by adding 1matter and 1 anti-matter, you would end up with 0.5 matter or something. Than I learned that anti-matter is just the same as matter with the charge being negative instead of positive, and that whole theory went down the drain. Yeah, made no sense, but I was 14, so I wasn't realy well educated in physics at that point.
She is a scientist and she obviously knows more about the subject than many of the viewers but I doubt many of the leading researchers on the topic would be able to present or explain this top as beautifully as her. She knew exactly how much to divulge and how to pace herself. Normally, I have trouble getting a British accent but she spoke well.
I find that all of us experts to be no more than blind men and women groping in the dark of a completely blacked out room for a black cat that may or likely as not be there.
I am able to take Bach's Partitas and flip them up side down, on the computer. I have to raise or lower the parts an octave or two in order to keep it in bounds. A remarkable thing happens when the catastasis is reached. I have to adjust just a few bars to finish the accumulating idea, that is absent from the original. That's the result of a matter, anti-matter relationship, in music. Considering the very same frequency relationships exist in both Bach's music and the frequency relationships between subatomic "particles," (DeBroglie waves), this anomaly is very interesting to me.
after finding enough CP violating particles next question what causes it and can the cause be replicated artificially, potentially creating universes, riiight? Cool video btw, thanks
The issue I take with this line of thinking, is that we named "matter" and "Anti-matter" . So if "Anti-matter" was abundant we'd still be made of matter and "Anti-matter" would be hard to find.
yeah of course, they are just labels after all, just like an electron is negative rather than positive, there is no other motive than convention and tradition. but the fact remains, that matter prevail over antimatter in the early universe.
Because probably at the creation of the universe all matter and antimatter was created and annihilated each other till there was no more antimatter is my guess
Lol yea, that was my thought as well! But now the real question. Are we the matter, or the anti-matter? I mean, it's all a matter of perspective right?
@@BartKuipersdotcom yeah there was that great physics joke about the antimacassar! (The guy coming home from his anti-job, to his anti-house, relaxing in his anti-arm chair and resting his head back on his macassar!
Given the distance between galaxies, is it possible that some galaxies are made of matter, and others are made of anti-matter? If anti-matter galaxies existed, would photons from an anti-matter galaxy be any different from photos in a posi-matter galaxy? And could photons and gravitons from a posi-matter galaxy travel through an anti-matter galaxy in the same way they travel through a posi-matter galaxy?
We know that what we "think we know" doesn't explain everything, so maybe we don't really understand what we "think we know" or maybe there's a lot more out there that we don't know at all.
well they studying it and trying to work it out. the lynchpin seems to be finding other particles that are decades or centuries out finding if they there to find at all. you trying to work out an imbalance in our universe in the universe that allows matter to dominate and the mechanics of that seem to lie in the first moments of the universe being created when it was the size of the smallest thing ever in our universe. talk about working in unknown spaces and doing so pretty blind since we have neither a complete theory of everything, nor do we fully have all the pieces of the puzzles in hand. And we stuck until we either figure out how to read particles collisions off stars and other stellar phenom or we stuck waiting until tech can make bigger accelerators are at ludicrous energies and the $$$ is just better spent elsewhere then leap frogging another LHC that is far too low an energy to tell you anything new particle wise, science to be sure to be done, but finding other particles is long out of our reach. but yes they are thinking about it.
If the laws of physics were CP-symmetric then I guess there'd be no reason for an asymmetry in the amount of matter and antimatter. Though I'm not sure if a lack of a reason for an asymmetry is enough of a reason for symmetry.
I'm wondering how many guesses are here. That the matter = antimatter at the outset is one. That the traces detected by LHC ARE indicative of Dmesons (and nothing else). That we could detect antimatter well enough to assert that there is less (example, if it decayed, could it have decayed into some form we have yet to detect or even conceive ? )
I wonder if there even is a way for us to do accurate experiments, when it comes to figuring out the things that happened in the early universe. Maybe the conditions were just too extreme for us to replicate at this point in time.
No, antimatter and matter are fundementally different, to the point that they annihilate if they ever come in contact in with each other. We would physically be able to tell if there was more antimatter because of the different charge, and the entire universe being here and not annihilated suggests that theres very little of it compared to matter. The difference between the 2 is more than just a difference in perspective or wordplay, such as the example you provided.
It is not necessary, since antiprotons, antineutrons and antielectrons are stable. They are expensive to produce though, and it is necessary to contain them in a mgnetic field.
This requires... a matter neutron. Anti-neutrons can also decay and produce 2 anti-particles that can annihilate 2 matter particles. It's no surprise that matter decays into more matter.
so - how do we know that like 50% of all galactic clusters are not made of anti-mater? is there some astronomical way to tell? perhaps its still 50/50 in the universe... just clumpy. or like ripples in a pond.
Hmm. I'm just wondering if charges have mass. If they do, is the mass of a positive charge the same as that of a negative charge? If not, could this be significant in some way? If they don't have mass, do charges interact with the strong force in the same way? If not, could that be significant? While its logical to assume that there could be other particles that we don't know about, could it also be that our understanding of how the particles we know about interact that needs looking at as well? I'm sure that's being done, its just something that came to mind. :o)
Explaining why they thing big bang energies and densities would produce 50% distributions sounds like philosophy until she explained they used the collider to reproduce theses conditions and got that result. The difference though are stark, a near vacuum with near zero expansion of space time for the experiment while the big bang had near black hole densities and near infinite (compared with current expansion) of space time, I think apples and oranges are closer than those to states.
There isn't, we have equal amounts of both. Our convention is wrong, the main difference between matter and antimatter is charge, so why not add charge to the definition. Positive charged particles are matter, negatively charged particles are antimatter. You have equal amounts of both, and symmetry can only be violated locally depending on which you have most. We don't need dark energy to explain our Universe.
How do we know that those galaxies “accelerating” away from us are not antimatter? Maybe matter and antimatter have a gravimetric repulsion, causing the universe to push outward against itself, instead of annihilating on itself.
We look for signs of annihilations. There are cosmic particles flying through space even between the galaxies, so if some of the galaxies were made out of antimatter, there would occasionally be collisions between matter and antimatter and therefore annihilations that we could detect.
Chris Ørum If the two types of matter exhibit a repulsion, these types of collisions would be significantly lessened. And being that the only thing detectable would be electromagnetic radiation, if you also take into consideration the plank constant, such minuscule burst of energy become undetectable from so far away. Realistically, it is difficult even to make out individual stars over these vast distances.
Impossible because all galaxies are accelerating away from each other. If your theory were true, then all galaxies accelerating away from us would have to accelerate toward each other and we don't observe that. There is also no basis for this in the standard model. There is only one Higgs boson, and so no reason to believe that anti-matter and matter have different "charges" of mass, or how such would even arise. We also do not see any evidence of this in matter-anti-matter particle creation by pair production. And lastly, I'm fairly sure an episode of PBS Spacetime debunked this theory that anti-matter would repel normal matter because you could construct perpetual motion machines and infinite energy out of such physical laws. Not exactly likely that your theory is right if that's a result of it.
I'm guessing that acceleration would have to be significantly greater than the signals it would send back for that to be undetected ... and eventually the signals should get here any way, since they would be accelerating in all directions, including towards us.
One possible explanation for the asymmetry in the earlier Universe would be if the Universe came into existence at the EH of an existing Blackhole then it may be possible that the missing Anti-matter particle fell into the Blackhole and the Matter particle escaped to become form the Universe we exist in.
That could be a reasonable explanation if matter and antimatter reacted differently to gravity. Unfortunately, it has recently been shown by actual tests that they both react the same to gravity. So that leaves the question of why matter and antimatter would move in opposite directions in the vicinity of a black hole.
How do we know that we are in the matter universe and not the anti matter one, have we got the lable wrong as we did with electrical current flow. For all we know there could be people in the anti matter universe who think we are anti matter.
@L I can only speak for myself, all the evidence is just circumstantial. I don't believe the true reality can be like quantum mechanics as we understand now. Why is there even a speed limit? How does entanglement even work through vast distance? Also, Quantum interaction is discrete, there is no in-between state.
Because there's an infinite time duration timing sequence of quantum orbital, in holographic resonance imaging, at the symmetrically balanced Universal Singularity, perceived as a Single Side Band wave-package, unitary probability-envelope Conception of Spinfoam Totality. "The very first moment", the implication of the Planck Dimension as the driver oscillation of e-Pi-i resonance imaging of multi-phase superimposed frequency interference positioning Image condensation and probability distribution.., the big Quantum Computation in the sky, appears to look like an explosion, but so does a Radio TV transmission when AM-FM sound is used to modulate EM circuits, ..circuits that are naturally embedded functions of the Observable Universe. We can never know what is on the other side of a Black Hole Singularity unless there's a specific case of lensing. (Compelled to imagine something like that happens in the LHC) We are made of, substantiated by, ..a standing wave positioning of time duration timing rates, that are integrated by/as recirculating modulated pulses of Superspin mass-momentum, "materially", here-now-forever.
True... I don't believe this lady.. the amount of matter and anti matter have to be even, if there is supposedly less anti matter, you have no case on where it went, no matter the form.
i thought that Energy couldnt be created nor destroyed so even a larger Universe would contain the same overall energy that a smaller universe contained.
Technically, that depends on the value of vacuum energy, which does allow for the creation of more stuff as the universe expands. But I think the statement she made that you're referring to was misspoken, and that what she meant was that the temperature decreased as the universe expanded and energy *density* decreased.
I'm pretty sure energy conservation doesn't hold in general relativity. Vacuum energy, for example, has a constant density, so as the universe expands and there's more space, there's also more vacuum energy created out of nothing. Also, a photon in an expanding universe is redshifted, so it loses energy which doesn't go anywhere, it just disappears.
I guess but it'd probably be very difficult to come up with a physical theory to explain why that would occur, considering that anti-matter we observe does not spontaneously disappear into extra dimensions.
Glad to have an opportunity to voice my two cents on this. Why do you think there was some bias as to matter verse antimatter? Seems arrogant. Why not instead while all the forces were still in Unitary mode +& - be subject to the same effects as the proton and the electron? At least temporarily. Too much to wrap your noodle around?
0:58 actually we don't, we think the universe started off as photons (pure energy) which then, under pair production, produced particles and antiparticles. if you instead say that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created at the moment of the big bang and then ask why there is more matter, the typical response is that maybe the underlying assumption is false, meaning that maybe the universe didn't create both matter and antimatter equally. saying that the universe started out as photons (the simplest particle) makes the most sense and that theory at least gives you a natural process to investigate
Antimatter has an opposite electric charge to its matter counterpart. Dark matter doesn't seem to interact with the electromagnetic force. So its either no, or it is a not an elementary particle, or its possibly both if dark matter isn't a single type of thing.
It is not ! ! ! Your body consists from the same number of the negative electrons as the positive positrons. For a 83.6[kg] man it is aproximately 1x10^29 electrons and 1x10^29 positrons. With the mean mass equal to m(proton)/4 for each. The half of you is matter, the half of your is antimatter. The mass of matter is practically equal to the mass of antimatter. The number of negative elementary charges equals the number of positive elementary charges. You are practically neutral. However not absolutely. On the level of the elementary particle, the electrons and positrons, there is perfect charge as well as mass parity. In their pair creation from massless gamma photon (with the energy larger than 2.022 MeV) as well as in mutual annihilation of electron and positron, creating twin of photons, catapulted in oposite. And again without the mass and without the charge. Still, keeping the energy of the maternal electron/positron twin preserved. Collosal matter/antimatter disbalance is just only on the level of lego composition of proton [e'+, e'- e'+] and antiproton [e'-,e'+,e'-]. And all the higher hiecharchies (atoms, molecules, ...). Not in its roots. On the level of electrons and positrons. For more, see ResearchGate (e.g. "World of the rings", ..etc.)
There are not that many positrons. Unless you think protons are positrons. Antimatter and matter explode when they touch each other. You don't , ergo no antimatter in your.
In every proton there are two heavy positrons e'+ and one heavy electron e'-. In balanced dynamic system of proton [e'+,e'-,e'+], the mass m(e'-)=m(proton)/2 and mass m(e'+)=m(proton)/4, giving the total mass of proton m(e'-)++2.m(e'+)=m(proton). The centrifugal force from mass of proton components is balanced by the centripetal strong electromagnetic force. Centrifugal force from rapid revolving of the components around the system barycentre is in equilibrium with the centripetal force of fields of components triplet. The speed of e'-, e'+ is closed to c and as a result, their mass is much higher than the mass of electron from atom envelope. The system of proton is stable. Without any anihilation. Serving as an oasis of the antimatter 2.e'+ .
You want an actual theory for once instead of a fire and forget youtube comment? Here's one fer ya. Gonna be a long one though. Inflation. Matter if compressed enough forms a black hole. So, why are there no anti-matter black holes? Since anti-matter is the reverse of normal matter, it stands to reason that a white hole, the opposite of a black hole, also does the reverse of black holes: Black holes swallow matter, White holes spew matter. Or to put it in another way; Light cannot Escape Black holes, thats why we call them black holes. Light cannot Enter White holes, thats why they appear white because all light coming from all directions cannot reach it's core so it just compresses around the edge as more and more light catches up to the event horizon. White holes already exist in theory so this is nothing new. But here comes the realization: White holes are made of Anti-matter. And that is why we haven't found any, even though they're supposed to exist. Here's the rub: Black holes swallow space so fast that light cannot escape it, because space is falling inwards faster then light can travel through it outwards. Therefor, white holes must make space so fast that when light tries to approach it, it's simply kept at bay because space is being made *faster then light*. And there is exactly 1 theory we know, which still isn't explained, which explains the uniformity of our universe; The Theory of Inflation, or that space expanded rapidly faster then light which explains why our universe is uniform throughout. It's not that there is more matter then anti-matter. There *was* *more* anti-matter then matter. That's why space was created faster then it was swallowed. After all if compressed matter makes black holes why didn't the big bang IMMEDIANTLY collapse into itself? A counterpart that drove it apart. As to why that process stopped at some point: Black holes radiate away their existance through hawking radiation over time. So, similarly, White holes would need a "source of fuel" too or they would collapse. Since Black holes increase their mass by absorbing matter, it stands to reason white holes increase their mass by absorbing anti-matter. Since anti matter behaves in an opposite manner, more mass would infact mean more anti-mass, therefor a bigger sphere of space repelling or even creating material. The white holes just absorbed anti-matter faster and turned it into space faster then black holes could absorb matter. That imbalance lead to the white holes winning the mass race and Inflation happening. Ever increasing sizes of holes means ever increasing amounts of fuel consumption. As the White ones where bigger they burned out faster; leaving no Anti-matter for Matter to annihialate with thus leaving... our universe as is. The white holes functioned as a secondary source for anti-matter consumption (outside of annihialation) which burned faster then the secondary source of matter consumption (the black holes). Which as shown explains both the question of the video AND the theory of inflation. As to why THAT all happened.... pfft i don't know. Probably an uneven energy distribution in the first nano seconds of the big bang. Same reason why our solar system isn't populated with equally spaced and sized planets becuase the supernova that created the gascloud of our system didn't explode equally everywhere either. If you start with more energy in one place then another you're gonna end up with clumps. And the white clump was just a bit bigger then the black one i suppose. If you want a quote for that last bit: God is just a lousy cook. Think we can atleast all agree on that.
The universe presumably branches (and rejoins) like a family tree, and so the antimatter is likely just way on the other side of the universe, where we simply can't see.
There probably is the same amount. just a massive explosion from the annihilation at the beginning and blew us apart, then eventually there was a enough empty space between us that the universe could expand faster than gravity could accelerate us back together.
Are you talking about matter in the known 5% of the universe or the unknown 95%?. All conjecture in my mind, about time we stopped pretending we know more than we do isn't it?
She even mentioned it in the video near the start, we already use Antimatter in PET machines (positron emission tomography), a medical scanning device.
@@TheBoothy666 I wasn't quite paying attention to the video becasue it's just basic info. Plus I remember her from a past RI lecture so I thought this is a demo from that lecture. However the Lo Janus should pay attention becasue he looks like he has some questions.
Today I learned that bananas make antimatter.
not only bananas ...
yre
lets eat some antimatter.
Tara Shears needs to instruct all other instructors on her fantastic method of conveying information to make it such an enchanting experience.
She is very misleading
Before I knew how everything worked, I believed that the reason there was more matter than anti-matter, was because at the birth of the universe there was an equal amount of matter/anti-matter, but because they would collide and explode, a huge amount of energy would be released, and I had just learned that energy=matter, so by adding 1matter and 1 anti-matter, you would end up with 0.5 matter or something. Than I learned that anti-matter is just the same as matter with the charge being negative instead of positive, and that whole theory went down the drain. Yeah, made no sense, but I was 14, so I wasn't realy well educated in physics at that point.
She is a scientist and she obviously knows more about the subject than many of the viewers but I doubt many of the leading researchers on the topic would be able to present or explain this top as beautifully as her. She knew exactly how much to divulge and how to pace herself. Normally, I have trouble getting a British accent but she spoke well.
I find that all of us experts to be no more than blind men and women groping in the dark of a completely blacked out room for a black cat that may or likely as not be there.
Very interesting subject and also top presentation skills
Good video. Explained clearly and interesting.
You should have titled it "What's the antimatter with antimatter?"
TFW you screw up your joke.
I don't think it antimatters.
Missed opportunity.
I am able to take Bach's Partitas and flip them up side down, on the computer. I have to raise or lower the parts an octave or two in order to keep it in bounds. A remarkable thing happens when the catastasis is reached. I have to adjust just a few bars to finish the accumulating idea, that is absent from the original. That's the result of a matter, anti-matter relationship, in music. Considering the very same frequency relationships exist in both Bach's music and the frequency relationships between subatomic "particles," (DeBroglie waves), this anomaly is very interesting to me.
after finding enough CP violating particles next question what causes it and can the cause be replicated artificially, potentially creating universes, riiight? Cool video btw, thanks
The issue I take with this line of thinking, is that we named "matter" and "Anti-matter" . So if "Anti-matter" was abundant we'd still be made of matter and "Anti-matter" would be hard to find.
yeah of course, they are just labels after all, just like an electron is negative rather than positive, there is no other motive than convention and tradition. but the fact remains, that matter prevail over antimatter in the early universe.
how do we know for shure that we are not simply in a region of the universe with more matter than antimatter?
sure*
Because probably at the creation of the universe all matter and antimatter was created and annihilated each other till there was no more antimatter is my guess
Also what’s the building on ur profil
@@-dennis3755 i have given up trying to correctly spell english a long time ago, it makes no sense
@@stefansauvageonwhat-a-twis1369 i don't understand how this answers the question
Thank you for this video Tara.
Is it a coincidence that Physics girl has also uploaded a vid on Anti matter?
It doesn't matter........
does it antimatter though?
..yeah, feels like we're being hustled by the science mafia. "We're gonna make you an education you can't refuse!"
Lol yea, that was my thought as well! But now the real question. Are we the matter, or the anti-matter? I mean, it's all a matter of perspective right?
@@BartKuipersdotcom yeah there was that great physics joke about the antimacassar! (The guy coming home from his anti-job, to his anti-house, relaxing in his anti-arm chair and resting his head back on his macassar!
@@NetAndyCz Not nearly as much as it matters.
why is the question ??? but they answered how you can detect the violation as usual ....
Given the distance between galaxies, is it possible that some galaxies are made of matter, and others are made of anti-matter? If anti-matter galaxies existed, would photons from an anti-matter galaxy be any different from photos in a posi-matter galaxy? And could photons and gravitons from a posi-matter galaxy travel through an anti-matter galaxy in the same way they travel through a posi-matter galaxy?
We know that what we "think we know" doesn't explain everything, so maybe we don't really understand what we "think we know" or maybe there's a lot more out there that we don't know at all.
well they studying it and trying to work it out. the lynchpin seems to be finding other particles that are decades or centuries out finding if they there to find at all.
you trying to work out an imbalance in our universe in the universe that allows matter to dominate and the mechanics of that seem to lie in the first moments of the universe being created when it was the size of the smallest thing ever in our universe. talk about working in unknown spaces and doing so pretty blind since we have neither a complete theory of everything, nor do we fully have all the pieces of the puzzles in hand.
And we stuck until we either figure out how to read particles collisions off stars and other stellar phenom or we stuck waiting until tech can make bigger accelerators are at ludicrous energies and the $$$ is just better spent elsewhere then leap frogging another LHC that is far too low an energy to tell you anything new particle wise, science to be sure to be done, but finding other particles is long out of our reach.
but yes they are thinking about it.
Didn’t ‘missing’ bb antimatter simply travel in the opposite direction in ‘time’?
I dont understand why they assume equal amounts were present at the outset
If the laws of physics were CP-symmetric then I guess there'd be no reason for an asymmetry in the amount of matter and antimatter. Though I'm not sure if a lack of a reason for an asymmetry is enough of a reason for symmetry.
Because matter and antimatter is created together. You can't just make a piece of matter and not end up with a bit of antimatter with it.
Hypothesis testing. We assume there's symmetry and observe if there's any CP violation.
I'm wondering how many guesses are here. That the matter = antimatter at the outset is one. That the traces detected by LHC ARE indicative of Dmesons (and nothing else). That we could detect antimatter well enough to assert that there is less (example, if it decayed, could it have decayed into some form we have yet to detect or even conceive ? )
Dude. Positrons were discovered in the 1930s, the existence of antimatter is not up for debate.
@@pudy2487 can we measure it?
@@DaBlondDude Very easily. Positrons have been isolated and kept in containment for (relatively) long periods many times before.
@@pudy2487 interesting, I'll have to look that up I didn't know about that and I'm curious how detection measurement and containment are accomplished
@@DaBlondDude I'm not really an expert on the process but I'm pretty sure positrons can be produced in a cyclotron without too much difficulty
I wonder if there even is a way for us to do accurate experiments, when it comes to figuring out the things that happened in the early universe. Maybe the conditions were just too extreme for us to replicate at this point in time.
It is a word play. Is there more down than up places ?
No, antimatter and matter are fundementally different, to the point that they annihilate if they ever come in contact in with each other. We would physically be able to tell if there was more antimatter because of the different charge, and the entire universe being here and not annihilated suggests that theres very little of it compared to matter. The difference between the 2 is more than just a difference in perspective or wordplay, such as the example you provided.
Because the folks who ordered matter skipped out on the bill?
We used to have matter and antimatter all over the place, but they couldn’t get along and annihilated each other in a big bang
Why do they annihilate when touching. Just a different charge? That doesn't happen when touching normal opposite charge stuff.
TLDR: we don't know.
Could it be possible to extend the life of an antimatter??
If it's possible then how??
It is not necessary, since antiprotons, antineutrons and antielectrons are stable. They are expensive to produce though, and it is necessary to contain them in a mgnetic field.
What about the decay of free neutrons? Doesn't take long, and produces 2 matter particles that can destroy 2 anti-matter particles.
This requires... a matter neutron. Anti-neutrons can also decay and produce 2 anti-particles that can annihilate 2 matter particles. It's no surprise that matter decays into more matter.
so - how do we know that like 50% of all galactic clusters are not made of anti-mater? is there some astronomical way to tell? perhaps its still 50/50 in the universe... just clumpy. or like ripples in a pond.
Hmm. I'm just wondering if charges have mass. If they do, is the mass of a positive charge the same as that of a negative charge? If not, could this be significant in some way? If they don't have mass, do charges interact with the strong force in the same way? If not, could that be significant? While its logical to assume that there could be other particles that we don't know about, could it also be that our understanding of how the particles we know about interact that needs looking at as well? I'm sure that's being done, its just something that came to mind. :o)
Dr Shears - genius.
I think she is a Professor by now. Holy smoke, that knowledge!!!
@@element_m2498 Thank you.
Explaining why they thing big bang energies and densities would produce 50% distributions sounds like philosophy until she explained they used the collider to reproduce theses conditions and got that result. The difference though are stark, a near vacuum with near zero expansion of space time for the experiment while the big bang had near black hole densities and near infinite (compared with current expansion) of space time, I think apples and oranges are closer than those to states.
There isn't, we have equal amounts of both. Our convention is wrong, the main difference between matter and antimatter is charge, so why not add charge to the definition. Positive charged particles are matter, negatively charged particles are antimatter. You have equal amounts of both, and symmetry can only be violated locally depending on which you have most. We don't need dark energy to explain our Universe.
How do we know that those galaxies “accelerating” away from us are not antimatter? Maybe matter and antimatter have a gravimetric repulsion, causing the universe to push outward against itself, instead of annihilating on itself.
We look for signs of annihilations. There are cosmic particles flying through space even between the galaxies, so if some of the galaxies were made out of antimatter, there would occasionally be collisions between matter and antimatter and therefore annihilations that we could detect.
Chris Ørum
If the two types of matter exhibit a repulsion, these types of collisions would be significantly lessened. And being that the only thing detectable would be electromagnetic radiation, if you also take into consideration the plank constant, such minuscule burst of energy become undetectable from so far away. Realistically, it is difficult even to make out individual stars over these vast distances.
Impossible because all galaxies are accelerating away from each other. If your theory were true, then all galaxies accelerating away from us would have to accelerate toward each other and we don't observe that.
There is also no basis for this in the standard model. There is only one Higgs boson, and so no reason to believe that anti-matter and matter have different "charges" of mass, or how such would even arise. We also do not see any evidence of this in matter-anti-matter particle creation by pair production.
And lastly, I'm fairly sure an episode of PBS Spacetime debunked this theory that anti-matter would repel normal matter because you could construct perpetual motion machines and infinite energy out of such physical laws. Not exactly likely that your theory is right if that's a result of it.
@@jonathansaraco
I guess you haven't heard of the "Higgsino" (the super symmetric partner of the Higgs) under the "New Physics" being investigated.
I'm guessing that acceleration would have to be significantly greater than the signals it would send back for that to be undetected ... and eventually the signals should get here any way, since they would be accelerating in all directions, including towards us.
Too much anti-matter was used to power the ships on Star Trek.
One possible explanation for the asymmetry in the earlier Universe would be if the Universe came into existence at the EH of an existing Blackhole then it may be possible that the missing Anti-matter particle fell into the Blackhole and the Matter particle escaped to become form the Universe we exist in.
That could be a reasonable explanation if matter and antimatter reacted differently to gravity. Unfortunately, it has recently been shown by actual tests that they both react the same to gravity. So that leaves the question of why matter and antimatter would move in opposite directions in the vicinity of a black hole.
How do we know that we are in the matter universe and not the anti matter one, have we got the lable wrong as we did with electrical current flow. For all we know there could be people in the anti matter universe who think we are anti matter.
The reason for CP violation is the simulation code computes the interaction of normal matter first.
@L I can only speak for myself, all the evidence is just circumstantial. I don't believe the true reality can be like quantum mechanics as we understand now. Why is there even a speed limit? How does entanglement even work through vast distance? Also, Quantum interaction is discrete, there is no in-between state.
Last I heard, the Catholic Church was being investigated for CP violation... maybe physicists should try looking there?
Because there's an infinite time duration timing sequence of quantum orbital, in holographic resonance imaging, at the symmetrically balanced Universal Singularity, perceived as a Single Side Band wave-package, unitary probability-envelope Conception of Spinfoam Totality.
"The very first moment", the implication of the Planck Dimension as the driver oscillation of e-Pi-i resonance imaging of multi-phase superimposed frequency interference positioning Image condensation and probability distribution.., the big Quantum Computation in the sky, appears to look like an explosion, but so does a Radio TV transmission when AM-FM sound is used to modulate EM circuits, ..circuits that are naturally embedded functions of the Observable Universe.
We can never know what is on the other side of a Black Hole Singularity unless there's a specific case of lensing. (Compelled to imagine something like that happens in the LHC)
We are made of, substantiated by, ..a standing wave positioning of time duration timing rates, that are integrated by/as recirculating modulated pulses of Superspin mass-momentum, "materially", here-now-forever.
True... I don't believe this lady.. the amount of matter and anti matter have to be even, if there is supposedly less anti matter, you have no case on where it went, no matter the form.
i thought that Energy couldnt be created nor destroyed so even a larger Universe would contain the same overall energy that a smaller universe contained.
Technically, that depends on the value of vacuum energy, which does allow for the creation of more stuff as the universe expands. But I think the statement she made that you're referring to was misspoken, and that what she meant was that the temperature decreased as the universe expanded and energy *density* decreased.
I'm pretty sure energy conservation doesn't hold in general relativity. Vacuum energy, for example, has a constant density, so as the universe expands and there's more space, there's also more vacuum energy created out of nothing. Also, a photon in an expanding universe is redshifted, so it loses energy which doesn't go anywhere, it just disappears.
Great voice.
Does the fact bananas make antimatter explain why they are so often claimed to help slimming?
The CMB may have come from a lot of matter and antimatter which annihilated during bigbang....
Could antimatter have gone backwards in time at the instant of the big bang?
Thats a crazy concept. I like it
could it be hidden away in extra spacial dimensions?
right!
It's all in the anti dimension
I guess but it'd probably be very difficult to come up with a physical theory to explain why that would occur, considering that anti-matter we observe does not spontaneously disappear into extra dimensions.
Matter is a physical perception and anti matter is a non physical anti perception and IMHO must be equal for any amount of one or the other to exist.
If there is a difference between matter and anti-matter can it really be called anti-matter?
Did she just say there's antimatter in my banana?? Wtf mind blown
no, Banana is rich in Potassium , some of them is slightly radioactive isotope.
I think the universe has the same normal matter than antimatter. We are in a galaxy with normal matter.
Unanswered title question in Ri video feels wrong
Yeah, why?
How is Academia cool with the notion of "antimatter" but foam in their mouth when talking about the Aether?
In the past universe anti-matter and matter looked the same, so it's an assumption that the universe is like the matter of earth
Glad to have an opportunity to voice my two cents on this.
Why do you think there was some bias as to matter verse antimatter?
Seems arrogant.
Why not instead while all the forces were still in Unitary mode +& - be subject to the same effects as the proton and the electron?
At least temporarily.
Too much to wrap your noodle around?
Maybe a lot of the antimatter was somehow transferred to a kind of alternate universe?
0:58 actually we don't, we think the universe started off as photons (pure energy) which then, under pair production, produced particles and antiparticles. if you instead say that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created at the moment of the big bang and then ask why there is more matter, the typical response is that maybe the underlying assumption is false, meaning that maybe the universe didn't create both matter and antimatter equally. saying that the universe started out as photons (the simplest particle) makes the most sense and that theory at least gives you a natural process to investigate
There is a parallel antimatter universe with a little kernel of matter... and perhaps it mirrors our universe. ???
isnt there a bias built into the LHC data?
98% of that went straight over my head
Because it's that matters
Luv your guts, Tara - even your anti-guts.
Anyone planning a banana drive for interstellar travel... ??
Good video , even better because the usual BS was missing. Also a very pleasant speaking voice.
Does it realy matter...?
Oh boy...
Does dark matter have a anti dark matter?
Antimatter has an opposite electric charge to its matter counterpart. Dark matter doesn't seem to interact with the electromagnetic force. So its either no, or it is a not an elementary particle, or its possibly both if dark matter isn't a single type of thing.
Because it matters.
The same reason why there is less human with rh- blood than rh+ blood type
... Does it matter?
It is not ! ! !
Your body consists from the same number of the negative electrons as the positive positrons.
For a 83.6[kg] man it is aproximately 1x10^29 electrons and 1x10^29 positrons. With the mean mass equal to m(proton)/4 for each.
The half of you is matter, the half of your is antimatter. The mass of matter is practically equal to the mass of antimatter.
The number of negative elementary charges equals the number of positive elementary charges. You are practically neutral. However not absolutely.
On the level of the elementary particle, the electrons and positrons, there is perfect charge as well as mass parity.
In their pair creation from massless gamma photon (with the energy larger than 2.022 MeV) as well as in mutual annihilation of electron and positron, creating twin of photons, catapulted in oposite.
And again without the mass and without the charge. Still, keeping the energy of the maternal electron/positron twin preserved.
Collosal matter/antimatter disbalance is just only on the level of lego composition of proton [e'+, e'- e'+] and antiproton [e'-,e'+,e'-]. And all the higher hiecharchies (atoms, molecules, ...).
Not in its roots. On the level of electrons and positrons.
For more, see ResearchGate (e.g. "World of the rings", ..etc.)
There is error in the energy treshold. I correct. It is 1.22 MeV
1.022MeV = 0.511 MeV + 0.511 MeV
There are not that many positrons. Unless you think protons are positrons. Antimatter and matter explode when they touch each other. You don't , ergo no antimatter in your.
In every proton there are two heavy positrons e'+ and one heavy electron e'-.
In balanced dynamic system of proton [e'+,e'-,e'+], the mass m(e'-)=m(proton)/2 and mass m(e'+)=m(proton)/4, giving the total mass of proton m(e'-)++2.m(e'+)=m(proton).
The centrifugal force from mass of proton components is balanced by the centripetal strong electromagnetic force.
Centrifugal force from rapid revolving of the components around the system barycentre is in equilibrium with the centripetal force of fields of components triplet.
The speed of e'-, e'+ is closed to c and as a result, their mass is much higher than the mass of electron from atom envelope.
The system of proton is stable. Without any anihilation. Serving as an oasis of the antimatter 2.e'+ .
study study study!
They all went to the anti universe
However, right-handed neutrinos have not been seen in nature. -> maybe the right-handed neutrinos went there as well ???
Title it "how antimatter matters"
Presuming that an anti-mater civilization that knows about anti-mater exists, are we made of mater or anti-mater?
It’s quite arbitrary , like why are protons are positive and electrons negative?
The Big Banfg created subparticles .... not atoms.
it is possible that none of these particles had any rotation, therefore no gravitational forces.
Chance
Well I heard it might be with the very problematic weak force that violates Parities
You want an actual theory for once instead of a fire and forget youtube comment? Here's one fer ya. Gonna be a long one though.
Inflation.
Matter if compressed enough forms a black hole. So, why are there no anti-matter black holes?
Since anti-matter is the reverse of normal matter, it stands to reason that a white hole, the opposite of a black hole, also does the reverse of black holes: Black holes swallow matter, White holes spew matter.
Or to put it in another way; Light cannot Escape Black holes, thats why we call them black holes. Light cannot Enter White holes, thats why they appear white because all light coming from all directions cannot reach it's core so it just compresses around the edge as more and more light catches up to the event horizon.
White holes already exist in theory so this is nothing new. But here comes the realization: White holes are made of Anti-matter. And that is why we haven't found any, even though they're supposed to exist.
Here's the rub: Black holes swallow space so fast that light cannot escape it, because space is falling inwards faster then light can travel through it outwards. Therefor, white holes must make space so fast that when light tries to approach it, it's simply kept at bay because space is being made *faster then light*.
And there is exactly 1 theory we know, which still isn't explained, which explains the uniformity of our universe; The Theory of Inflation, or that space expanded rapidly faster then light which explains why our universe is uniform throughout.
It's not that there is more matter then anti-matter. There *was* *more* anti-matter then matter. That's why space was created faster then it was swallowed. After all if compressed matter makes black holes why didn't the big bang IMMEDIANTLY collapse into itself? A counterpart that drove it apart. As to why that process stopped at some point: Black holes radiate away their existance through hawking radiation over time. So, similarly, White holes would need a "source of fuel" too or they would collapse.
Since Black holes increase their mass by absorbing matter, it stands to reason white holes increase their mass by absorbing anti-matter. Since anti matter behaves in an opposite manner, more mass would infact mean more anti-mass, therefor a bigger sphere of space repelling or even creating material.
The white holes just absorbed anti-matter faster and turned it into space faster then black holes could absorb matter. That imbalance lead to the white holes winning the mass race and Inflation happening. Ever increasing sizes of holes means ever increasing amounts of fuel consumption. As the White ones where bigger they burned out faster; leaving no Anti-matter for Matter to annihialate with thus leaving... our universe as is. The white holes functioned as a secondary source for anti-matter consumption (outside of annihialation) which burned faster then the secondary source of matter consumption (the black holes). Which as shown explains both the question of the video AND the theory of inflation.
As to why THAT all happened.... pfft i don't know. Probably an uneven energy distribution in the first nano seconds of the big bang. Same reason why our solar system isn't populated with equally spaced and sized planets becuase the supernova that created the gascloud of our system didn't explode equally everywhere either. If you start with more energy in one place then another you're gonna end up with clumps. And the white clump was just a bit bigger then the black one i suppose.
If you want a quote for that last bit: God is just a lousy cook. Think we can atleast all agree on that.
My 50BMG is an antimatter(ial) rifle
The universe presumably branches (and rejoins) like a family tree, and so the antimatter is likely just way on the other side of the universe, where we simply can't see.
Did I hear this right? There is generated antimatter in bananas? Wow! Now I know how to loose weight.
There probably is the same amount. just a massive explosion from the annihilation at the beginning and blew us apart, then eventually there was a enough empty space between us that the universe could expand faster than gravity could accelerate us back together.
Nice theory of a theory.
Anti matter was beat silly and went all Dark Matter on us.
I hear that Dark Matter sits in the corner cutting itself and listening to Linkin Park.
Andrew Gray LOL.......... Wait I listen to Linkin Park 😳
None of this really matters.
So many armchair fanfiction physicists in chat
Cause there is?
What if the regular matter is the anti matter and that's why we cant observe dark matter?
Incorrect I’m afraid. Run the clock back just a Planck length ;)
"anti-matter" is the last remnants of energy...it's the Post-Modern of Physics
no
@@sixdfx How binary. Yes :D
666 subscribers.
But how is antimatter real if the Earth is flat?
Your Beautiful.
No comment.
There is more antimatter in universe than matter. In fact, we're all made out of antimatter. We've just named the two wrong.
Send me truck loads af flambéing grant money for the answers to this and more.
Cause Jesus!
lol!
Are you talking about matter in the known 5% of the universe or the unknown 95%?. All conjecture in my mind, about time we stopped pretending we know more than we do isn't it?
Becouse you are the child.
But we dont know if antimatter exists, just a thought
We are using antimatter. What on Earth do you mean "we don't know if it exists"... It was discovered decades ago, not yesterday.
She even mentioned it in the video near the start, we already use Antimatter in PET machines (positron emission tomography), a medical scanning device.
@@TheBoothy666 I wasn't quite paying attention to the video becasue it's just basic info. Plus I remember her from a past RI lecture so I thought this is a demo from that lecture. However the Lo Janus should pay attention becasue he looks like he has some questions.
Because Yahweh created by a pulse of light, and then from nothing comes nothing, how nothing can create something ? GOD 👍
Lol. God is not real