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

[Seejer]

We are posting in Physical and Life sciences and you talk about linguistic references from 1960s.......well, at least you didn't quote some obscure passage in the Bible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

I think it's that the instruments to make these measurements don't really exist. I'm not exactly sure if it's a matter of money or not having good technology for such detectors.

 

[LaraLara]

I think it's that the instruments to make these measurements don't really exist. I'm not exactly sure if it's a matter of money or not having good technology for such detectors.

Ok, not so important. I fear to pose the next question because the answer might likely contain to much math: why was it suprising that the standard model created a matter antimatter inbalance? You can give me a link to an outside source if you don't want me to steal you to much time

 

[timewerx]

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

This thread has NOTHING to do with multiverses??

There is really no such like a structure, encompassing multiverses. Because that structure itself is also a universe in its own right which in turn, also inside another such structure and goes on infinitely.

Where we are isn't exactly what I'd call "universe" but more like an inescapable prison.

 

[LaraLara]

Where we are isn't exactly what I'd call "universe" but more like an inescapable prison.

I must have done something incredible stupid to be here ...

 

[timewerx]

I think it's that the instruments to make these measurements don't really exist. I'm not exactly sure if it's a matter of money or not having good technology for such detectors.

All we need to do is study the elementary particles which scientists are already doing at the LHC. An elementary particle is actually a "universe" in its own right.

Of course, tons of money and technology involved. You need higher energies to have better success of detection or generating better data for analysis. But higher energies mean much bigger equipment... I think someday, we might as well do these things in outer space so there's a lot bigger space to work with, pretty literally.

 

[timewerx]

I must have done something incredible stupid to be here ...

I'm simply being poetic.

There's really nothing in matter or antimatter. They are made up entirely of empty space. They are nothing but forces and electrical energy and in turn, virtual particles where they can assemble into something a lot more complex like atoms, molecules, and people like us.

About the same thing happens in a computer program. Perhaps something like an AI might think they have "substance" but is made by nothing more than algorithms which in turn made by instructions and finally by binary numbers. But in "reality", they don't exist by any measure. They only exist as forms of energy.....just like us.

You might wonder about Big Bang, it simply may have never happened. It may be likelier we were simply "switched on" or we never had a "beginning" in the linear fashion of time.

 

[LaraLara]

I'm simply being poetic.

There's really nothing in matter or antimatter. They are made up entirely of empty space. They are nothing but forces and electrical energy and in turn, virtual particles where they can assemble into something a lot more complex like atoms, molecules, and people like us.

About the same thing happens in a computer program. Perhaps something like an AI might think they have "substance" but is made by nothing more than algorithms which in turn made by instructions and finally by binary numbers. But in "reality", they don't exist by any measure. They only exist as forms of energy.....just like us.

You might wonder about Big Bang, it simply may have never happened. It may be likelier we were simply "switched on" or we never had a "beginning" in the linear fashion of time.

When I was six years old I spontanously and without any outside reference to build on developed thought experiments about time loops and implanted memories. I am always fascinated of how much people trust their experiences. As for me: I decided in that moment I can't.

 

[LaraLara]

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

I think I found what you are reffering to:
The idea behind parity symmetry is that the equations of particle physics are invariant under mirror inversion. This leads to the prediction that the mirror image of a reaction (such as a chemical reaction or radioactive decay) occurs at the same rate as the original reaction. Parity symmetry appears to be valid for all reactions involving electromagnetism and strong interactions. Until 1956, parity conservation was believed to be one of the fundamental geometric conservation laws (along with conservation of energy and conservation of momentum). However, in 1956 a careful critical review of the existing experimental data by theoretical physicists Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang revealed that while parity conservation had been verified in decays by the strong or electromagnetic interactions, it was untested in the weak interaction. They proposed several possible direct experimental tests. The first test based on beta decay of cobalt-60 nuclei was carried out in 1956 by a group led by Chien-Shiung Wu, and demonstrated conclusively that weak interactions violate the P symmetry or, as the analogy goes, some reactions did not occur as often as their mirror image."

What is the theoretical explanation for the reactions not occuring as often as thought?

 

[timewerx]

When I was six years old I spontanously and without any outside reference to build on developed thought experiments about time loops and implanted memories. I am always fascinated of how much people trust their experiences. As for me: I decided in that moment I can't.

That is highly unusual. I don't believe I have experienced it myself, but I've always thought of it possible through interaction with multiverses and could happen to other people.

I also don't always trust what I see in front of me to be real. I seem to have a bad case of Deja Vu. I keep seeing things shortly before they happen. Sometimes forcing me to make bad grammar mistakes if I don't carefully proofread my posts! :/

 

[LaraLara]

That is highly unusual. I don't believe I have experienced it myself, but I've always thought of it possible through interaction with multiverses and could happen to other people.

:/

I am the queen of spelling errors

The uncanny thing about the time loop was that I thought I caused it. I believed that I would make an error in the future that causes very big harm to my family and for this reason I would travell back in time to my childhood to undo the events. But because my memorys would be set back I would repeat the error again.

Now the problem is that I was part of something that caused very big harm to my family (I could not have foreseen it but I was nevertheless part of the cause). The atheist might now say drama happens in every family so there is nothing to fret but the drama is of a size that I have not seen anywhere else.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok, not so important. I fear to pose the next question because the answer might likely contain to much math: why was it suprising that the standard model created a matter antimatter inbalance? You can give me a link to an outside source if you don't want me to steal you to much time

ETA: I thought I posted this, but apparently not. Maybe this answers your later question.

I'll avoid the math, if you allow me some loose analogies.

The first surprising discovery was that parity conservation was violated by the weak force. So this is P-violation.

Parity conservation is basically the idea that physics should look the same if you look into a mirror. Apart from words being reversed, you wouldn't notice anything unusual about watching a sporting event that was mirror reversed. The motion of balls flying through the air would look normal.

You might notice, in a mirrored baseball game, that they run around the bases the wrong way. But you'd realize that was an effect of the mirroring. What would be weird is if the letters on their jerseys were reversed, but they ran around the bases the 'right' way. That's sort of like the surprising thing that was discovered.

When it comes to the radioactive decay of certain nuclei, it does look different in a mirror. This was surprising enough to win a Nobel Prize.

Getting down to basics, if you have a matter particle, it decays into things that shoot off aligned with the particle's north pole. But if you have an antimatter particle, it decays into things that shoot off aligned with the particle's south pole.

Then someone figured, well maybe the 'switch' of a particle to its antiparticle and the switch of looking into the mirror or not will sort of cancel out. A proton is positively charged, while an anti-proton is negatively charged. So just as your left hand is a mirror image of your right hand (Parity symmetry), a proton is the mirror image of an antiproton (Charge symmetry).

The product of those two things is CP-symmetry, and it seemed like that was perfectly conserved. If you switch it from a particle to an antiparticle, but watch in a mirror, so that the North pole turns into a South pole, then physics looks the same again.

But when we looked for violations of that rule... we found them. This CP-violation was surprising enough to win another Nobel Prize.

 

[LaraLara]

ETA: I thought I posted this, but apparently not. Maybe this answers your later question.

I'll avoid the math, if you allow me some loose analogies.

The first surprising discovery was that parity conservation was violated by the weak force. So this is P-violation.

Parity conservation is basically the idea that physics should look the same if you look into a mirror. Apart from words being reversed, you wouldn't notice anything unusual about watching a sporting event that was mirror reversed. The motion of balls flying through the air would look normal.

You might notice, in a mirrored baseball game, that they run around the bases the wrong way. But you'd realize that was an effect of the mirroring. What would be weird is if the letters on their jerseys were reversed, but they ran around the bases the 'right' way. That's sort of like the surprising thing that was discovered.

When it comes to the radioactive decay of certain nuclei, it does look different in a mirror. This was surprising enough to win a Nobel Prize.

Getting down to basics, if you have a matter particle, it decays into things that shoot off aligned with the particle's north pole. But if you have an antimatter particle, it decays into things that shoot off aligned with the particle's south pole.

Then someone figured, well maybe the 'switch' of a particle to its antiparticle and the switch of looking into the mirror or not will sort of cancel out. A proton is positively charged, while an anti-proton is negatively charged. So just as your left hand is a mirror image of your right hand (Parity symmetry), a proton is the mirror image of an antiproton (Charge symmetry).

The product of those two things is CP-symmetry, and it seemed like that was perfectly conserved. If you switch it from a particle to an antiparticle, but watch in a mirror, so that the North pole turns into a South pole, then physics looks the same again.

But when we looked for violations of that rule... we found them. This CP-violation was surprising enough to win another Nobel Prize.

I thank you very much for taking the time to explain this to me. I generally only learn things when the come in a form that interests me (f.e. is there design or not). Math did only find a way in my head when I got interested in economics.

What was the violation of the rule? That antimatter decays slower or something like that? Is there a theoretical explanation why this violation exist?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

You've got that completely backwards. Initial quantum fluctuations would lead to inhomogeneity without exponential inflation.

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?

It's not my argument, but that's the idea.

 

[LaraLara]

You've got that completely backwards. Initial quantum fluctuations would lead to inhomogeneity without exponential inflation.

How does this relate to the idea that the universe looks prettty much the same from everywhere you look? Does this initial quantum fluctuation result in inhomogenity but that inhomogenity is limited in size so that matter dispersion looks homogenous at large scale?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Linguistic, not scientific.

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

Usages change, neologisms are coined. The Milky Way used to be the universe until other galaxies were discovered, and then they were called 'island universes', but that changed.

Rather than qualify what had been known as the universe, when cosmologists saw that the equations predicted the possibility of other, independent, spacetimes, they called them other universes. It was then reasonable to call the collection a multiverse. It started as cosmology 'jargon' and caught on more widely.

Complain all you like, it's unlikely to change.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How does this relate to the idea that the universe looks prettty much the same from everywhere you look? Does this initial quantum fluctuation result in inhomogenity but that inhomogenity is limited in size so that matter dispersion looks homogenous at large scale?

This is not really the place for Cosmology 101. DYOR. Check out the Big Bang and Inflation.

 

[LaraLara]

This is not really the place for Cosmology 101. DYOR. Check out the Big Bang and Inflation.

As I explained to the other atheist in the same treat, this is the way I learn. You are however not forced to answer me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are however not forced to answer me.

You're too kind.

 

[LaraLara]

You're too kind.

You are still not understand that I am mentally handicapped and that this discussion is difficult for me. I repeat that I have difficulties to read long text. I found the following in the links you gave me:

"approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially during which time density fluctuations that occurred because of the uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe."

That still leaves open the question if there is a maximum size such a density fluctuation could have.