Your videos explains things sooooo well. For that, I thank you. I may always be an average joe that didn’t even finish college, and will very, very likely never be a physicist, but I love looking up at the night sky in wonder, while trying to grasp our place in it. You make these topics so incredibly accessible to people , and I can’t even begin to imagine how many young (and old!) minds you are inspiring with your passion, and your love and drive to share your knowledge. Thanks again- and please keep at it!
Arvin Ash is very good at explaining complex subjects in physics. Loved this video, matter antimatter asymmetry is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Of course we would not be here without it.
As promised, Arvin is marvelous! I could not always understand the first of the Sakharov conditions , the out-of-equilibrium, but only with the brief explanation of Arvin.
Very nice video essay. If I may add, your explanations on CP violation and the antimatter time-reversal would have perfectly connected to CPT symmetry, or its violation. Furthermore the deep connection of CPT symmetry to the standard model of physics via Lorenz invariance emphasizes the now very often used expression of physics beyond the standard model. I.e. the standard model of physics being right, but part of a bigger theory. A follow up video on that would suit really nicely
Absolutely! This man explains things that I've been reading about for years, and suddenly it just clicks, he has an amazing talent for explaining things in easy to understand ways.😊
“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don’t think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn’t stop you from doing anything at all.” Richard Feynman
From what I've read (and you explained in your video), matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. That could explain why there's no antimatter in our matter-centric universe. Antimatter and matter (what was left from a possible matterantimatter annihilation period taking place early during the early era of the universe) may have clumped due to their self-attractive properties. Meanwhile matter and antimatter kept repelling eachother and at some point as early as pre-star formation possibly completely separated, moving away from each other. There may be an antimatter twin universe somewhere far away from our matter-based universe which is why we never see any trace of any sizeable antimatter objects. It would be interesting to learn a theory on how/whether an antimatter universe could work. It would obviously require a revision of everything we know about physics today to understand the behavior of antimatter in a space devoid of matter.
Hi Dr. Ash, I think we have given up too easily on the rapid separation explanation. If there was a slight overabundance of matter in 1/2 of the universe just prior to inflation then net matter would have been separated from antimatter faster than the speed of light. The boundary areas where we expected to see m/a annihilations all occurred during the period before recombination. As fantastically improbable that such an overabundance configuration is, if we consider that the universe is infinite, which recent examination of the CMB says is likely, then, such regional departures from average nothingness become inevitable and magnified by inflation. Which, unfortunately, is a sort of an anthropomorphic solution unless we can peer into the period of time before recombination to see something.
Matter: "Where did all the antimatter go?" In another time and dimension... Matter: "Where did all the antimatter go?" It's only all a matter of perspective on who the matter is. By the way, Arvin Ash, I love your explanations of "weird" science better than anyone else so far. I just wish that your videos were a little longer. But then everyone else may think that's boring! Keep on churning our the wonderful , interesting science videos!
no one can. It's just that when you solve the Dirac eq for electrons, you get two solutions the propagate with exp(-iwt), and two with exp(+iwt)...so who get's the "+" sign? Is it (-w) for electrons and (+w) for positrons (w is frequency), or can you declare "all (anti)particles have positive frequency" so that it's (-w)(+t) for electrons and (-w)(-t) for positrons? So having the (-t) means they move backwards in time. it's not really physical......but if you get into Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory, than maybe it's a way to look at it.
@Shanae He never said "nonsense" but "possibility". And he never said "always flows forward' but "seems to". In fact, no one knows the truth whether it flows forward or backwards since the model of relativity actually *requires* back-in-time trajectories between particle interactions. Read Feynman's particle path-integral. Also the usage of absolutes isn't a good habit; especially in physics. Arvin realizes that very well.
The vacuum energy seems to only add a tiny energy density that can gravitate, this is (possibly) the cosmological constant or dark energy that makes up around 67% of the energy in the universe (equivalent to a few atoms per cubic metre). The problem is according to quantum field theory the vacuum energy should be 10^120 times bigger than that, which is why a quantum theory of gravity (which would be a theory of the vacuum of space) is still not understood. Maybe somehow the effects of the vacuum are shielded from producing gravity, who knows.
And, do these virtual particles fit into the standard model? Why don’t they produce a gamma ray like other matter/antimatter pairs that annihilate each other?
@@ronaldbrunsvold5632 Yes they are part of the standard model. They are not real ('on shell') particles so they cannot produce real particles, they only interact with real particles.
Of course this is an interesting subject. A couple days ago I was watching an interview with Alan Guth about various matters including the baryon number problem. I wondered if we live in a multiverse in which whole universes were created in pairs, with the baryon number problem solved by reference to the pairs of universes. An excess in matter of 1 universe correspons to an excess of antimatter in the other member of the pairs of universes.
Excellent video as always.. I know we can create anti-matter in the labs but in tiny amounts.. but in other experiments at LHC when we bang tiny particles into each other - no anti-matter is created (just like you said).. my question is why should the big bang have created anti-matter also? And I know we need anti-matter to explain super symmetry but thats only an unproven theory
One of the questions of the physics that haunted me for years and still haunting is that, where is all the anti matter that was created at the beginning of the universe.
Good answer is in Medium article, starting there was no beginning of the Universe, and it explains matter/antimatter imbalance in galaxies: No More Antimatter Enigma
Is it correct that the current known cross sections for CP violations in the standard model are insufficient to explain the imbalance of matter/antimatter?
@@DrDeuteron Thank you that helped. As per Arvin's explanation it would seem the standard model would have to be wrong in a pretty serious way to explain the imbalance, which is highly unlikely. Far more likely the CP violations are just a sign of a correct but incomplete theory, and that the perceived imbalance is caused by something going on in the incomplete part.
It seems to me that empty space is not "nothing" since Space-Time can be warped like a "fabric" & there are multiple quantum fields that can generate virtual particles.
It should always be remembered that Space is not nothing. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to curve in response to a large mass. The Charm Meson can change from antimatter into matter. Perhaps at the start of the Universe, conditions were such for other antiparticles to switch as well.
" The next time you hear someone speak of "empty space" consider the fact that the vacuum density of one cubit centimeter of space equals 10^93 grams. Rather than being empty space is more like a cosmic singularity..."
I agree it is an intriguing idea that has a lot of appeal. The main detractor is that whenever antimatter is created in a lab, it appears to go forward in time. You could argue that this is just a matter of perspective, that perhaps from some other perspective, that we are not privy to, antimatter particles are matter particles moving backward in time. But this introduces a perspective for which there is no evidence.
@@ArvinAsh I don't understand the objection to this idea... As far as we can tell, the direction of time is solely determined by entropy. So when antimatter is created in our universe, logically it also goes in the direction of increasing entropy from our universe perspective. If you look at it as going the other way in time, you would see it as normal matter. At t=0 entropy was thought to be (almost?) 0. So both directions in time would increase entropy. For me it seems so natural that the 'mirror image' of our universe contains all the antimatter that for that universe looks like normal matter. I don't think this is a falsifiable hypothesis though, but for me it follows from basic logic from what we currently know.
@@ArvinAsh Why must antimatter move backward in time? Could it not be possible that, like a coin which is having always two sides, the universe has two sides too which have been generated when the big bang happend? One with normal matter one with antimatter? And if so maybe they are interacting also with our universe in a way we do not understand, maybe that's what dark matter is. Maybe the idea is wrong, but i',m too tired to think more about it.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I like MOND idea. But I would be firmly in the minority on that. If it is proven to be a particle, I would probably place my bet on the Axion. BTW, I made two videos on these ideas not too long ago. MOND and Axion.
At 10:25 i just want to mention the mirror reflection isn't your right hand reflecting your left hand. Your right hand is actually reflecting your right hand, the mirror image actually reflects the z axis which is from the front of you going to the back of you. If that matters in the analogy.
Hi Arvin, can you please make a video about the physics of wireless communication? You can explain it in a much better way than anywhere else we can find :)
Arvin Ash … You have The GREATEST GIFT GIVEN BY GOD TO ANY MAN … to explain , and MAKE CLEAR THE WONDROUS WONDERS HE HAS USED TO CREATE US AND ALL THE VISIBLE AND UNSEEN UNIVERSE … I can’t wait to sit and listen to You , and Elohim Creator TAKING TURNS THRILLING ALL OF US WITH ALL THE REST …
13:51 How do they know the antiparticles are traveling forwards in time? If every particle has its own reference frame, maybe from its point of view is indeed travelling backwards and from our point of view is travelling forward
Well i think the point is they look like theyre traveling forwards in time to us, not making a statement on the perspective of the particle. The conjecture was saying instead of creating a matter and antimatter pair like normal, (where if you look at it as if the antiparticle moves backwards in time) instead you create them such that the antiparticle has no past timeline connecting to the positive particle, and no point in which they generate or annihilate. By creating a particle and antiparticle, and choosing to think of the antiparticle as moving backwards in time, you have to think of the positive particle as being created at the same time as the antiparticle being destroyed in its own perspective. The past and future are switched for the two particles in this case. But in the conjecture where the antiparticles and particles "move in different directions in time and therefore never interact" the idea is that INSTEAD of the antiparticle being destroyed in the reverse-time of the particle being created, now the antiparticle is being created in tbe reverse time as the particle being created. Essentially, the conjecture isnt asking about how we think about the antiparticles own perspective, instead, its siggesting to flip the normal starting and ending point of the causal chain of events for the antiparticle, and Arvin is saying that scientists have never observed antiparticles do this. It probably violates physics.
Space tunneled from Counterspace, through the Inertial plane. Space started when Dielectric energy was released from the Inertial plane, creating Time.
If there's an imbalance in matter/antimatter, perhaps it actually IS balanced, but a 3rd piece is yet to be discovered; one that only affects antimatter perhaps by attracting antimatter but deflects matter. Like, "- , + , and -/+". If an undiscovered particle is holding antimatter particles hostage, perhaps due to them bonding under the intense conditions of the first second of the universe, then attempts of matter particles annihilating with antimatter particles could be defended by the hostage-taking particle. Instead of annihilation creating massive energy in the form of gamma rays, the hostage-taking particle gains mass from the attempted annihilation, and energy is redirected back into the matter particle (or possibly elsewhere, possibly describing non-zero vacuum fluctuation). Ideally, this would provide a WIMP particle, because it only interacts with virtual particles during a matter/antimatter annihilation attempt (something we can't really observe because annihilations are only inferred when a gamma ray is created, so if there's no gamma ray, there's thought to be no matter/antimatter interaction), and gains mass every time that interaction occurs. The invisible increase of mass in the universe explains dark matter in a sense, and the outward pressure on matter particles these massive composite particles have could explain dark energy, assuming they're everywhere. Which, they'd have to be, if they were there alongside matter particles in the beginning to kidnap antimatter particles. idk
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "The gravitational interaction of antimatter with matter or antimatter has not been conclusively observed by physicists. ... Most methods for the creation of antimatter (specifically antihydrogen) result in high-energy particles and atoms of high kinetic energy, which are unsuitable for gravity-related study." - Gravitational interaction of antimatter - Wikipedia
The structure of space is incredibly stiff, this is why it is so difficult to detect gravitational waves. Also, it could be that an entire neighboring Galaxy could be made entirely of antimatter, and we have no way of telling it only by looking at it. I believe that there are a number of surprises for us to find, as we will understand better the nature of the gravity and the making of gluons, as for all the dark matter which shows gravity interaction with normal matter, but no electromagnetic or nuclear interaction. Thank you for the thoughtful video Mr. Ash, it is greatly appreciated...
It would be incredibly easy to detect a galaxy full of antimatter, actually ^^. Each element (whether that be matter _or_ antimatter) has an "electromagnetic signature": when you make a spectrogram of anything, you'll notice holes at certain frequencies. This is how we know what stars, planets, and galaxies are made of. Look up "stars spectrogram", you'll quickly understand the principle. From what I gather, antimatter would emit a shitton of gamma rays ; which we have no problem detecting. So no, there's no "anti-galaxies", at least not near us. Antimatter is not something we can't see. We can totally detect it, it's just that it's rare for some reason. And that "for some reason" is the whole mystery behind this video!
Yes indeed, the videos are info packed, so please do rewind them or watch them as many times as you need. I would not expect most people to understand this in one viewing, even some physics students.
Thank you for not calling him "Soviet physicist" as although Andrei Sakharov lived in that time he was a political dissident and opposed soviet oppressive regime.
11:09 parity does not flip spin, it flips momentum. I know your animation of a mirror effect is correct, but really the spin should point into the mirror for that. The problem arises b/c parity takes (x, y, z) to (-x, -y, -z), while your mirror-in-the-YZ-plane takes it to (-x, y ,z). Since both determinants are -1, you can proceed, but it may cause some confusion to newbies.
If we refer to "Everything" AKA "The Universe" it is a single closed and Isolated system, where its total quanta of all it's matter equates to 1 As a whole it's "All The Universe" all else is a fraction, as in a part of "100%" or "1" Add a contradictory quanta Eg: Antimatter -1 or a some fraction to Matter we end up with a fraction of all the matter being in Violation to Conservation. Game Over for the contradictory quanta that is Antimatter, what's left is what the actual Universe always was and always will be..
@@KorAllRBare my post has nothing to with the universe, it's a bout the mathematics of the parity operator and how we call it a mirror reflection, even though it is technically a little different. But not much.
@@KorAllRBare yang and lee won the1957 Nobel prize for it, after Madame Wu famously observed maximal parity violation (momentum aligned with spin) in 1956. So it's been around for some time.
@@DrDeuteron So what does that say? It's been around for quite a while, and I repeat my question, Who has advanced the Theory and who if any is investing in it's advancement, and more importantly to what end?
This is what RUclips is good for. In my humble opinion is that there was equal amounts of Mater- Antimater. Under super symmetry time scales are on a different scale. That and the initial suspension of the law of attraction due to SS Antimater achieved apogee perhaps, perhaps not in any case I believe annihilationl is not off the table.
No entropy increases in both directions of time. But if you rewind your clock determinstically, then you are going to see a huge amount of near-impossible quantum entropy violating events.
This question always bothers me, it assumes that there would have been perfect uniformity in matter and anti-matter. Why wouldn't you assume that it would be in clumps? And if it's in clumps, wouldn't it only annihilate at the boundaries? And lastly, it's my understanding that matter and anti-matter both interact chemically and electromagnetically and therefore would be indistinguishable from one another and the only way to tell which it is is to have it interact with a know matter/anti-matter. Therefore wouldn't that mean that some of the galactic super clusters could be anti-matter and we would have no way of telling the difference?
The simplest theory that explains the koino-matter vs. anti-matter conundrum is to allow each their own time vector and to let those time vectors have opposite direction. Then the two types of matter instantly will separate instead of instantly re-colliding in the moment of creation.
It's an intriguing idea that has a lot of appeal. The main detractor is that whenever we have created antimatter in a lab, they all annihilate and go forward in time. So experimental evidence to support this idea is lacking.
@@ArvinAsh No, conditions are not the same, you are comparing different situations. The original singularity has time=0, ie. you are not on a time vector and you can "select" direction of travel, for instance in accordance with some definition of polarity. Now we are on a time vector with a defined direction of travel and have to adhere to it, apparently also if antimatter. So there is no contradiction in the difference between those scenarios, they are different. At the Origo you begin with nothing being defined. Read James Blish's book about time and universe - and a lot more, it is a good swashbuckler - "Cities Flight" or "The City" - it is quite profound and Blish has given the Origo a good deal of thought.
Sir Please ans a question We have two choices First- verse have a beginning But how something can evolve from nothing 2nd- it doesn't have beginning But this points out that our verse is reason less but how something can happen/exists without any reason?
@Arvin Ash I don't know whether I have any misconception or it is real, like whenever we are pushing an object ( generally at rest ), it's velocity *INSTANTANEOUSLY* changes. So does this violates that information can't travel faster than speed of light.
14:14 I heard it's still not determined yet do matter and antimatter attract each other by the gravitation. The inertial mass of the matter and antimatter equals, but there's still a chance that gravitational mass of the antimatter is negative. In such case, there would be no edge between the matter and the antimatter, if they are repelled from each other
The only reason to think antimatter repels matter is semantics: we gave it the name "anti" matter, and anti should repel because it's called anti. We may well have called it "conjugate matter", or "reverse matter", or "complimentary matter"...and then no one would think it repels. But it is a difficult measurement, since you need a neutral anti-hydrogen atom to track. Any charge, and you cannot see gravity's effects.
@@DrDeuteron yes, exactly, with anti-hydrogen. I read that such experiment is planned, and the expected result is that it falls down as a usual atom - but there is no guarantee. After all, nobody understands yet how the gravity works
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 that's totally wrong. opposite charges attract, but the point of this question is gravity, which is why they use neutral antimatter, to avoid EM complications.
@@skibaa1 You are correct. Its been done already, but the error bar is huge. They're trying to shrink it. An positive result would be earth shattering, as would any oddities in anti-hydrogen spectroscopy.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Your way of teaching is on the next level
Arvin Ash and Dr PhysicsA are the clearest explainers of science in the Internet.
Your videos explains things sooooo well. For that, I thank you.
I may always be an average joe that didn’t even finish college, and will very, very likely never be a physicist, but I love looking up at the night sky in wonder, while trying to grasp our place in it. You make these topics so incredibly accessible to people , and I can’t even begin to imagine how many young (and old!) minds you are inspiring with your passion, and your love and drive to share your knowledge. Thanks again- and please keep at it!
Arvin Ash is very good at explaining complex subjects in physics. Loved this video, matter antimatter asymmetry is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Of course we would not be here without it.
Maybe you wouldn’t, but I would
Thank you, Arvin! Great video and explanation as always 👏
As promised, Arvin is marvelous! I could not always understand the first of the Sakharov conditions , the out-of-equilibrium, but only with the brief explanation of Arvin.
yes he is clear
cmb vs cgwb - not boundary gamma waves? food for thought
I can tell that you and your team worked hard on this video. Keep up the good work.
He's way to teach is almost unique, and makes all he says, crystal clear! Thanks Arvin!
Awesome video! Thank you Arvin, take care brother. The next generation is lucky to have you, and your videos.
I appreciate that!
I love your videos man… 💪🏼
Very nice presentation! Thanks for important information on this topic.
Very nice video essay. If I may add, your explanations on CP violation and the antimatter time-reversal would have perfectly connected to CPT symmetry, or its violation. Furthermore the deep connection of CPT symmetry to the standard model of physics via Lorenz invariance emphasizes the now very often used expression of physics beyond the standard model. I.e. the standard model of physics being right, but part of a bigger theory. A follow up video on that would suit really nicely
Lotta fun man watching your videos. Thank you
Excellent video! What about T and CPT violations and their impact on the Standard Model and the Theory of General Relativity?
Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
I don't understand why Arvin's videos aren't more widely watched. Just here to push the algorithm.
There are many things in this universe that you don’t understand my friend.
Absolutely! This man explains things that I've been reading about for years, and suddenly it just clicks, he has an amazing talent for explaining things in easy to understand ways.😊
Great presentation ! Thank you
Dude , you rock!
"coming up.. right now" so pleasing to hear from you every time 👌
“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don’t think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn’t stop you from doing anything at all.” Richard Feynman
Awesome awesome video Arvin🙅♂️🙅♂️👌👌👌 nice one man ✨✨✨❤️
Dude, I'm giving this a thumbs up just for the phonetic eloquence of "baryogenesis anomaly"...
I gave a thumbs up for the girl blowing kisses in the mirror!
@Paul Wolf
Please, no bible references. We’re having so much fun here.
THANK YOU DR.ARVIN ASH...!!!
From what I've read (and you explained in your video), matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. That could explain why there's no antimatter in our matter-centric universe. Antimatter and matter (what was left from a possible matterantimatter annihilation period taking place early during the early era of the universe) may have clumped due to their self-attractive properties. Meanwhile matter and antimatter kept repelling eachother and at some point as early as pre-star formation possibly completely separated, moving away from each other. There may be an antimatter twin universe somewhere far away from our matter-based universe which is why we never see any trace of any sizeable antimatter objects.
It would be interesting to learn a theory on how/whether an antimatter universe could work. It would obviously require a revision of everything we know about physics today to understand the behavior of antimatter in a space devoid of matter.
Nice work on the visuals!
I've been waiting for so long... finally it's here
and then it's not
Thanks Marvin
Hi Dr. Ash, I think we have given up too easily on the rapid separation explanation. If there was a slight overabundance of matter in 1/2 of the universe just prior to inflation then net matter would have been separated from antimatter faster than the speed of light. The boundary areas where we expected to see m/a annihilations all occurred during the period before recombination. As fantastically improbable that such an overabundance configuration is, if we consider that the universe is infinite, which recent examination of the CMB says is likely, then, such regional departures from average nothingness become inevitable and magnified by inflation. Which, unfortunately, is a sort of an anthropomorphic solution unless we can peer into the period of time before recombination to see something.
An "infinite" universe can't have expanded from a single point 14 billion years ago. I think you need to recheck your understanding.
Love your channel and videos, very informative! You're on the road to 10 million subs!
I think Arvin would be happy with a mere 1 million subs. You know, for the immediate future anyway.
Hope I didn’t step on your toes there, @Arvin Ash.
Fascinating indeed
Thank you Sir Arvin
What tools do you use for your animations ?
I don't make the animations myself. I believe my team members use both Adobe and Sony products.
CX
Thanks Arvin for the informative video as always. Would you explain how we make matters and anti matters in the lab?
Pleasure to watch it live. 👥
Premiere it was recorded it's been sending live .
Great explanations! This was fun to watch.
Music to my ears... 🎼🎶🎸
Whenever I feel depressed I know I can come to your channel and enjoy myself. Thank you
Arvin you're number ONE!!!! 🎯⭐⭐⭐
Another fantastic dose of knowledge (and hypotheses). Thanks!
The feynmann idea blew my mind
Matter: "Where did all the antimatter go?"
In another time and dimension...
Matter: "Where did all the antimatter go?"
It's only all a matter of perspective on who the matter is.
By the way, Arvin Ash, I love your explanations of "weird" science better than anyone else so far. I just wish that your videos were a little longer. But then everyone else may think that's boring! Keep on churning our the wonderful , interesting science videos!
What a fantastic video! My favourite explanation is leptogenesis via sterile neutrinos and the sphaleron process :)
Great video!
I just can’t picture antimatter going backwards in time, would you please talk about that in more details? Great video!
no one can. It's just that when you solve the Dirac eq for electrons, you get two solutions the propagate with exp(-iwt), and two with exp(+iwt)...so who get's the "+" sign? Is it (-w) for electrons and (+w) for positrons (w is frequency), or can you declare "all (anti)particles have positive frequency" so that it's (-w)(+t) for electrons and (-w)(-t) for positrons? So having the (-t) means they move backwards in time.
it's not really physical......but if you get into Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory, than maybe it's a way to look at it.
@Shanae He never said "nonsense" but "possibility". And he never said "always flows forward' but "seems to". In fact, no one knows the truth whether it flows forward or backwards since the model of relativity actually *requires* back-in-time trajectories between particle interactions. Read Feynman's particle path-integral.
Also the usage of absolutes isn't a good habit; especially in physics. Arvin realizes that very well.
@Shanae
There’s a conspiratorial edge to your comment.
Great videos! Best on RUclips. I'd love a videon on Gauge theory
4:24 ? Do virtual particles create gravity? What is density of virtual particles? How much grams per cubic centimeter, even if ephereral?
The vacuum energy seems to only add a tiny energy density that can gravitate, this is (possibly) the cosmological constant or dark energy that makes up around 67% of the energy in the universe (equivalent to a few atoms per cubic metre). The problem is according to quantum field theory the vacuum energy should be 10^120 times bigger than that, which is why a quantum theory of gravity (which would be a theory of the vacuum of space) is still not understood. Maybe somehow the effects of the vacuum are shielded from producing gravity, who knows.
And, do these virtual particles fit into the standard model? Why don’t they produce a gamma ray like other matter/antimatter pairs that annihilate each other?
@@ronaldbrunsvold5632 Yes they are part of the standard model. They are not real ('on shell') particles so they cannot produce real particles, they only interact with real particles.
Great video
As always, I feel slightly closer to truth
I see what you did there ;)
Great comment 👌
👁️ CU
What is truth actually?
@@zahajek27 good point, I guess the best we have for now is an approximation
This mans content is so good!
Thanks for the brain food, Arvin!
Thanks!
Of course this is an interesting subject. A couple days ago I was watching an interview with Alan Guth about various matters including the baryon number problem. I wondered if we live in a multiverse in which whole universes were created in pairs, with the baryon number problem solved by reference to the pairs of universes. An excess in matter of 1 universe correspons to an excess of antimatter in the other member of the pairs of universes.
Very good! 😊
What happened to anti-matter? I don't know -- go ask uncle-matter!
Or ask cousin-matter
as always plenty of good stuff
Excellent video as always.. I know we can create anti-matter in the labs but in tiny amounts.. but in other experiments at LHC when we bang tiny particles into each other - no anti-matter is created (just like you said).. my question is why should the big bang have created anti-matter also? And I know we need anti-matter to explain super symmetry but thats only an unproven theory
One of the questions of the physics that haunted me for years and still haunting is that, where is all the anti matter that was created at the beginning of the universe.
That question also haunts most cosmologists.
Good answer is in Medium article, starting there was no beginning of the Universe, and it explains matter/antimatter imbalance in galaxies:
No More Antimatter Enigma
Is it correct that the current known cross sections for CP violations in the standard model are insufficient to explain the imbalance of matter/antimatter?
Yes!
look up the "Jarlskog Invariant".
@@DrDeuteron Thank you that helped. As per Arvin's explanation it would seem the standard model would have to be wrong in a pretty serious way to explain the imbalance, which is highly unlikely. Far more likely the CP violations are just a sign of a correct but incomplete theory, and that the perceived imbalance is caused by something going on in the incomplete part.
It seems to me that empty space is not "nothing" since Space-Time can be warped like a "fabric" & there are multiple quantum fields that can generate virtual particles.
It should always be remembered that Space is not nothing. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to curve in response to a large mass. The Charm Meson can change from antimatter into matter. Perhaps at the start of the Universe, conditions were such for other antiparticles to switch as well.
Charm quarks decay but positions can't.
...
" The next time you hear someone speak of "empty space" consider the fact that the vacuum density of one cubit centimeter of space equals 10^93 grams. Rather than being empty space is more like a cosmic singularity..."
@@gnarlydewd there is in average 1 proton per cubic meter of empty space.
@@onderozenc4470 do you even know what electrons and protons are?
Awesome 💯
Mmmm... A possible antimatter Universe moving backwards in Time? He's been watching too much Tennant!
Who can ever get enough of Tenet!
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
I would still sort of support Feynman's way of thinking.
I agree it is an intriguing idea that has a lot of appeal. The main detractor is that whenever antimatter is created in a lab, it appears to go forward in time. You could argue that this is just a matter of perspective, that perhaps from some other perspective, that we are not privy to, antimatter particles are matter particles moving backward in time. But this introduces a perspective for which there is no evidence.
@@ArvinAsh
I don't understand the objection to this idea...
As far as we can tell, the direction of time is solely determined by entropy. So when antimatter is created in our universe, logically it also goes in the direction of increasing entropy from our universe perspective. If you look at it as going the other way in time, you would see it as normal matter.
At t=0 entropy was thought to be (almost?) 0. So both directions in time would increase entropy. For me it seems so natural that the 'mirror image' of our universe contains all the antimatter that for that universe looks like normal matter.
I don't think this is a falsifiable hypothesis though, but for me it follows from basic logic from what we currently know.
@@ArvinAsh Why must antimatter move backward in time? Could it not be possible that, like a coin which is having always two sides, the universe has two sides too which have been generated when the big bang happend? One with normal matter one with antimatter? And if so maybe they are interacting also with our universe in a way we do not understand, maybe that's what dark matter is.
Maybe the idea is wrong, but i',m too tired to think more about it.
Space e->~
@@ArvinAsh How many Gamma Rays come out of an empty breadbox sized box in an hour?
Love this channel
Hello Arvin,
Which theory is best for explaining dark matter currently according to you?
I don't have a strong opinion, but I like MOND idea. But I would be firmly in the minority on that. If it is proven to be a particle, I would probably place my bet on the Axion. BTW, I made two videos on these ideas not too long ago. MOND and Axion.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454
After trying so hard we don't find any axions
Do we need to modify theory or experiment infrastructure?
At 10:25 i just want to mention the mirror reflection isn't your right hand reflecting your left hand. Your right hand is actually reflecting your right hand, the mirror image actually reflects the z axis which is from the front of you going to the back of you. If that matters in the analogy.
What I was trying to say is that your right hand is your mirror image's left hand, and vice versa.
@@ArvinAsh gotcha! btw i love your videos. Thanks for making them!
Hi Arvin, can you please make a video about the physics of wireless communication? You can explain it in a much better way than anywhere else we can find :)
Explaining 5G is on my list. But check out Lesics for engineering explanations. I think they do a really good job.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks, I will check it out!
Arvin Ash … You have The GREATEST GIFT GIVEN BY GOD TO ANY MAN … to explain , and MAKE CLEAR THE WONDROUS WONDERS HE HAS USED TO CREATE US AND ALL THE VISIBLE AND UNSEEN UNIVERSE … I can’t wait to sit and listen to You , and Elohim Creator TAKING TURNS THRILLING ALL OF US WITH ALL THE REST …
13:51 How do they know the antiparticles are traveling forwards in time? If every particle has its own reference frame, maybe from its point of view is indeed travelling backwards and from our point of view is travelling forward
Probably because they decay. And to decay you need to move forward in time.
Well i think the point is they look like theyre traveling forwards in time to us, not making a statement on the perspective of the particle.
The conjecture was saying instead of creating a matter and antimatter pair like normal, (where if you look at it as if the antiparticle moves backwards in time) instead you create them such that the antiparticle has no past timeline connecting to the positive particle, and no point in which they generate or annihilate.
By creating a particle and antiparticle, and choosing to think of the antiparticle as moving backwards in time, you have to think of the positive particle as being created at the same time as the antiparticle being destroyed in its own perspective. The past and future are switched for the two particles in this case.
But in the conjecture where the antiparticles and particles "move in different directions in time and therefore never interact" the idea is that INSTEAD of the antiparticle being destroyed in the reverse-time of the particle being created, now the antiparticle is being created in tbe reverse time as the particle being created.
Essentially, the conjecture isnt asking about how we think about the antiparticles own perspective, instead, its siggesting to flip the normal starting and ending point of the causal chain of events for the antiparticle, and Arvin is saying that scientists have never observed antiparticles do this. It probably violates physics.
My very favourite Physics channel....
Sir, is it possible that dark matter is a remnant of pervious universe?
Is "pervious" universe one filled with weirdos, paedos and pervs!!! And that explains why is is called dark matter lol
Space tunneled from Counterspace, through the Inertial plane. Space started when Dielectric energy was released from the Inertial plane, creating Time.
@@gyro5d 😅
Wow…Really awesome
Antimatter could form standard galaxies 'just' over the visable horizon, this could explain the fractal bubble structures we observe!!!
Arc-V
@@HerrFunnybones ??? Sorry I don't get your reference :(.
If there’s an arc or bubbles it’s usually a higher dimension interacting with another
@@HerrFunnybones Yep, thanks for replying. The cosmological question is 'which' dimensions. Is it an evolving metric or just skew parameters??
If there's an imbalance in matter/antimatter, perhaps it actually IS balanced, but a 3rd piece is yet to be discovered; one that only affects antimatter perhaps by attracting antimatter but deflects matter. Like, "- , + , and -/+".
If an undiscovered particle is holding antimatter particles hostage, perhaps due to them bonding under the intense conditions of the first second of the universe, then attempts of matter particles annihilating with antimatter particles could be defended by the hostage-taking particle. Instead of annihilation creating massive energy in the form of gamma rays, the hostage-taking particle gains mass from the attempted annihilation, and energy is redirected back into the matter particle (or possibly elsewhere, possibly describing non-zero vacuum fluctuation). Ideally, this would provide a WIMP particle, because it only interacts with virtual particles during a matter/antimatter annihilation attempt (something we can't really observe because annihilations are only inferred when a gamma ray is created, so if there's no gamma ray, there's thought to be no matter/antimatter interaction), and gains mass every time that interaction occurs.
The invisible increase of mass in the universe explains dark matter in a sense, and the outward pressure on matter particles these massive composite particles have could explain dark energy, assuming they're everywhere. Which, they'd have to be, if they were there alongside matter particles in the beginning to kidnap antimatter particles.
idk
You're so smart and you describe everything so well. You must be a genius lol
Great video. I have been here since 1k subs
Awesome! Thank you!
There's also "Phoenix Theory" that also assumes anti-matter has negative gravity
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "The gravitational interaction of antimatter with matter or antimatter has not been conclusively observed by physicists. ... Most methods for the creation of antimatter (specifically antihydrogen) result in high-energy particles and atoms of high kinetic energy, which are unsuitable for gravity-related study." - Gravitational interaction of antimatter - Wikipedia
best videos of all times.
She divorced Uncle Matter and is now living in SoCal with a guy named Raul.
She's also in a lesbian relationship with Auntie Christa.
Ah, if course!
Raul was always so dark and mysterious
This channel is a little more clear than other channels.
OMG the hype is high right now
Cool vid 🖖
Somewhere out there is another universe , also wondering where all the antimatter is 😊
amazing video
Hi. We went to this fancy universe and substituted all the antimatter for Folger's crystals. Let's see if anyone notices.
+1 Notice
Noticeable improvement-good job!!!
Is that why my Coffee is so tasty?
The structure of space is incredibly stiff, this is why it is so difficult to detect gravitational waves.
Also, it could be that an entire neighboring Galaxy could be made entirely of antimatter, and we have no way of telling it only by looking at it.
I believe that there are a number of surprises for us to find, as we will understand better the nature of the gravity and the making of gluons, as for all the dark matter which shows gravity interaction with normal matter, but no electromagnetic or nuclear interaction.
Thank you for the thoughtful video Mr. Ash, it is greatly appreciated...
It would be incredibly easy to detect a galaxy full of antimatter, actually ^^. Each element (whether that be matter _or_ antimatter) has an "electromagnetic signature": when you make a spectrogram of anything, you'll notice holes at certain frequencies. This is how we know what stars, planets, and galaxies are made of. Look up "stars spectrogram", you'll quickly understand the principle.
From what I gather, antimatter would emit a shitton of gamma rays ; which we have no problem detecting.
So no, there's no "anti-galaxies", at least not near us. Antimatter is not something we can't see. We can totally detect it, it's just that it's rare for some reason. And that "for some reason" is the whole mystery behind this video!
In an antimatter universe, instead of wondering why we're here, do we wonder why we're NOT here?
Yes, because the antimatter universe is not here. So that is exactly what they wonder.
@@SgtSupaman maybe they know where my damn keys are.
I watch your videos two steps forward, one step back. That's how often I have to rewind because your trying to put years of college in a
Yes indeed, the videos are info packed, so please do rewind them or watch them as many times as you need. I would not expect most people to understand this in one viewing, even some physics students.
Thank you for not calling him "Soviet physicist" as although Andrei Sakharov lived in that time he was a political dissident and opposed soviet oppressive regime.
Yes indeed, I had heard about his views on Soviet oppression long before I learned about his scientific achievements.
Realy I like this video so so much 😊
Ahhh, the folly of Man and his hubris. Yeah, everything just leaped into existence..... YEAH! Phhhhft. Nope.
Don't tell me, it required a magical sky fairy to snap his fingers.
@@garethhanby straw man, go read a book, preferably the Bible. Open your mind.
@@evanw2195 lol, the irony of a christian telling someone to open their mind and read the bible.
Have you got any other pearlers to go with that?
11:09 parity does not flip spin, it flips momentum. I know your animation of a mirror effect is correct, but really the spin should point into the mirror for that. The problem arises b/c parity takes (x, y, z) to (-x, -y, -z), while your mirror-in-the-YZ-plane takes it to (-x, y ,z). Since both determinants are -1, you can proceed, but it may cause some confusion to newbies.
If we refer to "Everything" AKA "The Universe" it is a single closed and Isolated system, where its total quanta of all it's matter
equates to 1 As a whole it's "All The Universe" all else is a fraction, as in a part of "100%" or "1"
Add a contradictory quanta Eg: Antimatter -1 or a some fraction to Matter we end up with a fraction of all the matter being in
Violation to Conservation. Game Over for the contradictory quanta that is Antimatter, what's left is what the actual
Universe always was and always will be..
@@KorAllRBare my post has nothing to with the universe, it's a bout the mathematics of the parity operator and how we call it a mirror reflection, even though it is technically a little different. But not much.
@@DrDeuteron And hows that going?
And is/has anyone invested funds into it?
@@KorAllRBare yang and lee won the1957 Nobel prize for it, after Madame Wu famously observed maximal parity violation (momentum aligned with spin) in 1956. So it's been around for some time.
@@DrDeuteron
So what does that say?
It's been around for quite a while, and I repeat my question,
Who has advanced the Theory and who if any is investing in it's advancement, and more importantly to what end?
This is what RUclips is good for.
In my humble opinion is that there was equal amounts of Mater- Antimater.
Under super symmetry time scales are on a different scale.
That and the initial suspension of the law of attraction due to SS Antimater achieved apogee perhaps, perhaps not in any case I believe annihilationl is not off the table.
13:20 back wards in time .does it mean entropy decrease with time in that part?
But the laws of thermodynamics...
@@mjzudba5268ijust don't have words to explain but I'm sure you don't get me read again
No entropy increases in both directions of time. But if you rewind your clock determinstically, then you are going to see a huge amount of near-impossible quantum entropy violating events.
This question always bothers me, it assumes that there would have been perfect uniformity in matter and anti-matter. Why wouldn't you assume that it would be in clumps? And if it's in clumps, wouldn't it only annihilate at the boundaries? And lastly, it's my understanding that matter and anti-matter both interact chemically and electromagnetically and therefore would be indistinguishable from one another and the only way to tell which it is is to have it interact with a know matter/anti-matter. Therefore wouldn't that mean that some of the galactic super clusters could be anti-matter and we would have no way of telling the difference?
But then the gamma rays would occur right?
The simplest theory that explains the koino-matter vs. anti-matter conundrum is to allow each their own time vector and to let those time vectors have opposite direction. Then the two types of matter instantly will separate instead of instantly re-colliding in the moment of creation.
It's an intriguing idea that has a lot of appeal. The main detractor is that whenever we have created antimatter in a lab, they all annihilate and go forward in time. So experimental evidence to support this idea is lacking.
@@ArvinAsh No, conditions are not the same, you are comparing different situations. The original singularity has time=0, ie. you are not on a time vector and you can "select" direction of travel, for instance in accordance with some definition of polarity. Now we are on a time vector with a defined direction of travel and have to adhere to it, apparently also if antimatter. So there is no contradiction in the difference between those scenarios, they are different. At the Origo you begin with nothing being defined. Read James Blish's book about time and universe - and a lot more, it is a good swashbuckler - "Cities Flight" or "The City" - it is quite profound and Blish has given the Origo a good deal of thought.
Sir
Please ans a question
We have two choices
First- verse have a beginning
But how something can evolve from nothing
2nd- it doesn't have beginning
But this points out that our verse is reason less but how something can happen/exists without any reason?
@Arvin Ash I don't know whether I have any misconception or it is real, like whenever we are pushing an object ( generally at rest ), it's velocity *INSTANTANEOUSLY* changes. So does this violates that information can't travel faster than speed of light.
The velocity change is not instantaneous. There is an acceleration involved in application of any force.
Thx
14:14 I heard it's still not determined yet do matter and antimatter attract each other by the gravitation. The inertial mass of the matter and antimatter equals, but there's still a chance that gravitational mass of the antimatter is negative. In such case, there would be no edge between the matter and the antimatter, if they are repelled from each other
The only reason to think antimatter repels matter is semantics: we gave it the name "anti" matter, and anti should repel because it's called anti. We may well have called it "conjugate matter", or "reverse matter", or "complimentary matter"...and then no one would think it repels.
But it is a difficult measurement, since you need a neutral anti-hydrogen atom to track. Any charge, and you cannot see gravity's effects.
@@DrDeuteron yes, exactly, with anti-hydrogen. I read that such experiment is planned, and the expected result is that it falls down as a usual atom - but there is no guarantee. After all, nobody understands yet how the gravity works
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 that's totally wrong. opposite charges attract, but the point of this question is gravity, which is why they use neutral antimatter, to avoid EM complications.
@@skibaa1 You are correct. Its been done already, but the error bar is huge. They're trying to shrink it. An positive result would be earth shattering, as would any oddities in anti-hydrogen spectroscopy.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 don't joke about physics. it's not funny.