Why matter matters in the universe
March 28, 2008A new physics discovery explores why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. The latest research findings, which involved significant contributions from physicists at the University of Melbourne, have been recently published in the prestigious journal Nature.
The paper reveals that investigation into the process of B-meson decays has given insight into why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.
“B-mesons are a new frontier of investigation for us and have proved very exciting in the formation of new thought in the field of particle physics.” said Associate Professor Martin Sevior of the University’s School of Physics who led the research.
Sevior says that B-mesons contain heavy quarks that can only be created in very high energy particle accelerators. Their decays provide a powerful means of probing the exotic conditions that occurred in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang created the Universe.
“Our universe is made up almost completely of matter. While we’re entirely used to this idea, this does not agree with our ideas of how mass and energy interact. According to these theories there should not be enough mass to enable the formation of stars and hence life.”
“In our standard model of particle physics, matter and antimatter are almost identical. Accordingly as they mix in the early universe they annihilate one another leaving very little to form stars and galaxies. The model does not come close to explaining the difference between matter and antimatter we see in the nature. The imbalance is a trillion times bigger than the model predicts.”
Sevior says that this inconsistency between the model and the universe implies there is a new principle of physics that we haven’t yet discovered.
“Together with our colleagues in the Belle experiment, based at KEK in Japan, we have produced vast numbers of B mesons with the world’s most intense particle collider.”
“We then looked at how the B-mesons decay as opposed to how the anti-B-mesons decay. What we find is that there are small differences in these processes. While most of our measurements confirm predictions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, this new result appears to be in disagreement.”
“It is a very exciting discovery because our paper provides a hint as to what the new principle of physics is that led to our Universe being able to support life.”
Source: University of Melbourne
8 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
http://superstrun...ance.gif
Apparently, the particles living in the inner gradients are more stable, then those, living on the outer boundaries of foam bubbles, because their gradients are more curved and continuous, so they've a slightly higher energy density. Interesting point is, at the moment of Aether foam condensation, both types of particles were nearly of the same stability. But as the cooling of Universe continues, the differences between particles and antiparticles will become pronounced. Only the very fast cooling followed by expansion of space can help both kind of particles keep separated, so that the antimatter can appear in the neighborhood of primordial black holes, including the hole, which appears at the center of our Galaxy. This is because, by the AWT the matter of galaxies has evaporated from quasars (so called the active galactic nuclei) during inflation and the black holes are cold remnants of these quasars.
I know this "model" is of long standing duration & is utterly accepted, but I remember physics being about data & facts.
A Common Sense Conjecture
A. From Chapter III, "Life, Tomorrow's Comprehension", at
http://blog.360.y...Q--?cq=1&p=372
Singularity and D-Infinity (max expansion/cosmic energy dilution) are the conjectured start- and end- cosmos states. Their in-between is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense observation, that the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic (and universal) process
E=Total[m(1 D)]
where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.
Following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship.
B. And a bit more in
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=180&#entry327257
Dov Henis
E=Total[m(1 D)]
1 D
Dov Henis
E=Total[m(1 plus D)]
Dov Henis
There is another solution. That the Standard Model is actually more correct that the %u201CCPT Violation%u201D theory. That antimatter still persists in the Universe in large amounts. And that our inability to detect its presence has more to do with our inability to sample material from different quadrants of the Universe, than it does to %u201Cnonexistence%u201D of antimatter in modern times. This explanation is possible because light is the anti-particle of itself, if light were to be emitted from an antimatter star, we wouldn%u2019t be able to differentiate it from light, which is generated from a matter-based star. Essentially, this theory suggests that matter and antimatter was present in equal quantities at the early onset of the creation of the Universe, however, when galaxies coalesced, some were made of matter and some were made of antimatter. Because we exist in the Milky Way, we can only obtain matter-based samples. However, that does not preclude neighboring galaxies to be made of antimatter. This theory is also about thirty years old.
Because the above-described theory was quantitatively based, the scientific establishment derided it. One of its original creators made the mistake of publicly described the resulting Universe as having a composition like %u201CSwiss cheese%u201D where the holes represented galaxies and the rest was nothingness. Instantly, detractors slapped the moniker %u201CSwiss cheese model%u201D on it and it was doomed to obscurity%u2026after all, %u201Cit was full of holes,%u201D went the joke. Today that model has been resurrected, polished, and enhanced with new thermodynamic understanding gained from the field of nanotechnology. The new model, the Dominium, is currently being advanced by Hasanuddin and debated on Scientific American blog-space (see http://science-co...0005039) This new model was rushed to publication in book form because it deductively shows that mini black-holes are expected to be stable. Ominous, because the controversial machine, LHC, possesses the theoretic potential to create man%u2019s first mini black-holes. Because of the immanent threat, it was written with the lay-readership as its target, yet is back by thorough citations from modern studies from the most reputable scientific journals. I downloaded a free copy of the model and bibliography that was offered by the author at http://www.sendsp.../u56srb.
Given the recent lawsuit posted in Hawaii to stop the controversal LHC project based on completely different risk analyses--debate on this new theory is essential to us all. I can't find a flaw with the new model, and that scares me.
Bottom line: if the Dominium%u2019s implication that mini black-hole material is stable and LHC %u201Csucceeds%u201D in being the first to generate such a sample, then we are all in deep trouble.