Multiverses: should there be a matter anti-matter imbalance in any of them

[LaraLara]

The question is so special that I thought it would merit an individual treat.

The idea that multiverses exist is often used to state that every kind of universe can exist, however if there are universes that do vary so much from our universe that they can be called a new "type" of universe (I do not mean universes that just have different values for the natural laws we have but different natural laws) that would make the theory even more complicated.

I have the feeling that if the universes that can exist in a multiverse are just our "typ" a matter antimatter imbalance should not exist IN ANY OF THEM.

There has no law been found to explain why the big bang should not be a symetric process and all matter will be very close to each other in the big bang of every of our types of universes.

 

[lesliedellow]

If a particle and anti particle come inti contact, they immedistely annihilate one another, releasing a burst of electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, any hypothetical universe would soon become one in which matter predominated over anti matter, or vice versa.

 

[LaraLara]

If a particle and anti particle come inti contact, they immedistely annihilate one another, releasing a burst of electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, any hypothetical universe would soon become one in which matter predominated over anti matter, or vice versa.

But if matter and antimatter is created in equal amounts why does one dominate the other?

 

[Dave-W]

There is only one universe. "uni-" means one.

All of these theoretical levels/dimensions or whatever you want to call them, are ALL part of that ONE universe.

 

[Dave-W]

any hypothetical universe would soon become one in which matter predominated over anti matter, or vice versa.

Not if both are in equal amounts.

 

[timewerx]

There has no law been found to explain why the big bang should not be a symetric process and all matter will be very close to each other in the big bang of every of our types of universes.

It's all hypothetical with no precedence in our lifetimes that's why you won't find any laws about it.

But if we're going to talk about my own personal theories on the topic, I'd say there are universes that are entirely made of antimatter or at least the vast majority of it.

They are usually produced from highly energetic processes within another universe. It can happen all the time within your body but you don't notice the effects due to the intense energy barriers of elementary particles in the atoms.

Let's not forget Quantum Entanglement. That's where all the magic begins. The Big Bang depends on a number of factors but to some Universes, it may have never happened.

 

[Petros2015]

I can haz Anti-Dark-Matter

 

[essentialsaltes]

There has no law been found to explain why the big bang should not be a symetric process

This is actually false. Experimentally, we discovered (surprisingly) that the Standard Model violates CP symmetry. This produces an imbalance of matter vs antimatter. Currently, the amount of CP violation that has been measured is too small to account for what we see, but there are several other suspected sources of CP violation that have not been measured, so we don't know whether these would be enough to account for what we see.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if there are universes that do vary so much from our universe that they can be called a new "type" of universe (I do not mean universes that just have different values for the natural laws we have but different natural laws) that would make the theory even more complicated.

Could you be more vague? But, in general, no it wouldn't.

I have the feeling that if the universes that can exist in a multiverse are just our "typ" a matter antimatter imbalance should not exist IN ANY OF THEM.

Feelings don't count without evidence or argument.

There has no law been found to explain why the big bang should not be a symetric process and all matter will be very close to each other in the big bang of every of our types of universes.

Current physics suggest that all matter is very close (i.e. dense) at the big bang.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But if matter and antimatter is created in equal amounts why does one dominate the other?

The tiny excess of matter could be due to charge-parity violation, and/or large-scale inhomogeneity (i.e. we happen to be in a volume where matter predominates), and/or the possibility of a fundamental particle with an electric dipole moment.

 

[LaraLara]

and/or large-scale inhomogeneity (i.e. we happen to be in a volume where matter predominates),.

The physics you proposed do not exactly make the physics of the universe less complex. It seems to me like the universe always need an additional rule to fix the problems of the last rule.

In the case of the inhomogenity shouldn't there be some kind of force that dispersed it ineuqitable? As the universe looks to us very homogenous in the moment is your argument connected to the fact that we can not see every part of the universe?

 

[LaraLara]

Feelings don't count without evidence or argument..

I wanted to indicate with this way that I am not sure if I am heading in the right direction. It is a way of asking for clarification.

 

[LaraLara]

This is actually false. Experimentally, we discovered (surprisingly) that the Standard Model violates CP symmetry. This produces an imbalance of matter vs antimatter.

Ah sorry, I read an wikipedia entry that said the standard modell goes not well with the asymetry. I maybe read it wrong or it has not been explained well. It certainly points into the direction that there could be varying amounts of antimatter in other universes so my question is answered.

Why have the other possible sources of matter/antimatter imbalance not been measured? Is it a problem of money/time or is the problem more fundamental?

 

[Seejer]

There is only one universe. "uni-" means one.

All of these theoretical levels/dimensions or whatever you want to call them, are ALL part of that ONE universe.

This seems to be incorrect....


Multiverse
For other uses, see Multiverse (disambiguation).
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical lawsand constants that describe them.[1][2][3][4]

The various universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternative universes".[5][6][7]

 

[LaraLara]

This seems to be incorrect....


Multiverse
For other uses, see Multiverse (disambiguation).
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical lawsand constants that describe them.[1][2][3][4]

The various universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternative universes".[5][6][7]

I think the correct term of something that encompasses all is: cosmos

 

[Dave-W]

I think the correct term of something that encompasses all is: cosmos

The correct term is universe. It should have no plural.

Calling the various independent realms "universes" is a mis-use of the term. "Multiverse" is a made up term based on that mis-use.

 

[Seejer]

The cosmos (UK: /ˈkɒzmɒs/, US: /ˈkɒzmoʊs/) is the universe regarded as a complex and orderly system; the opposite of chaos.[1] The philosopher Pythagoras used the term cosmos (Ancient Greek: κόσμος) for the order of the universe, but the term was not part of modern language until the 19th century geographer and polymath, Alexander von Humboldt, resurrected the use of the word from the ancient Greek, assigned it to his multi-volume treatise, Kosmos, which influenced modern and somewhat holistic perception of the universe as one interacting entity.[2][3]

so not quite that either

 

[LaraLara]

The cosmos (UK: /ˈkɒzmɒs/, US: /ˈkɒzmoʊs/) is the universe regarded as a complex ....Kosmos, which influenced modern and somewhat holistic perception of the universe as one interacting entity.[2][3]

I seem to have subconciously picked the term that appeals mostly to me

 

[Seejer]

Calling the various independent realms "universes" is a mis-use of the term.

Any reference for that ?

 

[Dave-W]

Any reference for that ?

Linguistic, not scientific.

Look up "Universe" in any US dictionary of 1960s vintage.