🧵 Matter anti-matter asymmetry
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:15:49 UTC No. 16061739
Why is there so much more matter than anti-matter? What sort of mechanism allows symmetry breaking on this massive scale?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:27:04 UTC No. 16061751
>>16061739
antimatter is just regular matter flowing backwards in time
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:40:18 UTC No. 16061770
>>16061739
theres speculative theories about it. If true, it should be possible to use the mechanism to turn all matter into energy, i.e you could have electrons annihilate protons if you dont care about baryon or lepton number conservation.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:02:09 UTC No. 16061795
>>16061739
how do we know shit we see in the universe isn't antimatter? like stars and planets and shit
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:20:27 UTC No. 16061832
>>16061751
but anon, there is no time
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:25:21 UTC No. 16061841
>>16061739
There is a possibility there isn't more matter than antimatter and we're just in a part of the universe where more matter is observable than antimatter.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:32:32 UTC No. 16061937
>>16061795
>>16061841
is the idea that if there were antimatter galaxies, we would be able to see radiation from the tiny amounts of gas that annhiliate with gas from nearby matter galaxies?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:37:04 UTC No. 16061945
>>16061795
When matter and antimatter annihilate they give off light at a specific frequency and we don't observe that.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:17:30 UTC No. 16062013
So what would be a mechanism of creating matter/anti-matter and then separating the two before they annihilate? And probably tossing the anti-matter far away too.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:57:36 UTC No. 16062763
>>16061739
Because God is greater than Satan
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:33:38 UTC No. 16062992
>>16061739
Positrons aren't really the exact opposite of electrons, and I bet antiprotons aren't the opposite of protons either.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:36:19 UTC No. 16063000
>>16062992
They are though
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:37:33 UTC No. 16063003
>>16063000
I've had two really special dreams my life. One I called the spirits dream and the other, the monkeys dream
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:44:36 UTC No. 16063019
>>16063003
dreams are messages from the deep, anon.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:03:53 UTC No. 16063071
>>16063000
thats just a theory. Symmetries get broken due to additional forces not accounted for, if they are tiny then things will look almost symmetrical
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:08:05 UTC No. 16063082
>>16063071
Hmm well my theory is called "the standard model" and has so much experimental success there is a backlash against funding more experiments. Your theory where the positron is not a charge conjugate of the electron is what exactly?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:27:22 UTC No. 16063232
>>16063082
>and has so much experimental success there is a backlash against funding more experiments
The standard model has plenty of things not explained. The only good part of it is QED, and only about a single measurement, that of the anomalous magnetic moment. The prestige from this success just gets passed along to the rest of particle physics.
Besides, the things i have said about symmetry breaking are part of the standard model. Its called Baryongenesis, and its not something you will ever deduct from studying pure electromagnetism because it entails other interactions.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:49:25 UTC No. 16063373
>>16063232
>baryoNgenesis
lol
Baryogenesis has nothing to do with the positron not being the conjugate of an electron. Drop the act already
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:38:33 UTC No. 16063473
>>16063373
>Baryogenesis has nothing to do with the positron not being the conjugate of an electron.
Sure it does. Just because these particles are not baryons does mean they are unrelated.
You are basically ideologized into thinking baryon or lepton number must be conserved always because.. it just does. You have no proof of that.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:54:51 UTC No. 16063642
>>16063473
You are making two mistakes. One is the statement that "you have no proof of" baryon and lepton number being conserved. Actually there is ample proof, since there have been a number of experiments that have gone looking for baryon number violation (and the corresponding proton decay) but they have all come up empty. There are beyond standard model theories that could violate it and there are even rare nonperturbative standard model processes that could violate it, but it has never been observed despite experimentalists' best efforts.
The more serious mistake is thinking any of this has anything to do with whether the positron is the charge conjugate of the electron. The fact of the matter is that our world does have stable charged states called electrons and any quantum field theory describing this should have CPT conjugate states called positrons too. This is true in all of the hypothetical grand unified theories that explicitly break baryon symmetry too. So please explain your personal theory where the positron is not the charge conjugate of an electron because it's not anything I'm familiar with
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:38:45 UTC No. 16063725
>>16063722
>you can either know nothing or everything
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:40:56 UTC No. 16063728
>>16061832
Time is real. The idea of "right now" is an illusion
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:56:33 UTC No. 16063761
>>16063753
Dude
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:56:36 UTC No. 16063762
>>16063753
we are anti-matter to anti-matter
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:54:23 UTC No. 16063849
>>16061751
How come there's more matter than antimatter then
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:02:52 UTC No. 16063863
>>16063642
>So please explain your personal theory where the positron is not the charge conjugate of an electron because it's not anything I'm familiar with
Lmao at this faggot get pressed simping for positrons
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:07:52 UTC No. 16063872
>>16061751
what is the opposite of radioactive decay, in time? radioactive fusing?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:10:16 UTC No. 16063876
>>16063872 me
as in backwards flow in time would imply a sort of lowering of entropy for anti-matter.