Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Improved precision in matter-antimatter difference does not resolve mystery


The mystery, that is, of why the universe is matter and not equal and oppositely charged antimatter: From Sarah Charley at Symmetry:

“We’re looking for hints,” says Stefan Ulmer, spokesperson of the BASE collaboration. “If we find a slight difference between matter and antimatter particles, it won’t tell us why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, but it would be an important clue.”

The BASE measurement shows that the magnetic moments of the proton and antiproton are identical, apart from their opposite signs, within the experimental uncertainty of 0.8 parts per million. The result improves the precision of the previous best measurement by the ATRAP collaboration in 2013, also at CERN, by a factor of six. This new measurement shows an almost perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter particles, thus further constricting leeway for incongruencies which might have explained the cosmic asymmetry between matter and antimatter.More.

See also: Experiments on antimatter are now possible?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Why isn't this contradiction taken as a falsification of the Standard Model of Cosmology? The data is not as the model predicts. It's way way off - not even close! So, how to interpret that result? Under normal circumstances, if we were doing an experiment, wouldn't we then view the hypothesis as having been falsified? Why not in this instance? [Because the Big Bang is all they have and it would be very embarrassing to scrap at this point? Not good enough!] OK, so how should a scientist solve this problem? How should a scientist deal with this possible contradiction/falsification of their origins model? There are two main options: 1) View it as evidence of some as of yet undiscovered clue/substance/principle/etc that would solve the problem. ASSUME the model is right and that therefore there is an answer somewhere and go out and look for it. or 2) Take it as falsification of the model. How can we tell which is the right interpretation? Can science help us with that or are we now outside the realm of science in trying to decide between these two options? How long do we give scientists to try and solve this problem before we take it as a falsification of the model? Are there any guidelines for for how to handle this type of problem? tjguy

Leave a Reply