Cosmology News Physics

New theory as to why matter predominates over antimatter

Spread the love
Why more matter than antimatter?/NASA

From ScienceDaily:

st of the laws of nature treat particles and antiparticles equally, but stars and planets are made of particles, or matter, and not antiparticles, or antimatter. That asymmetry, which favors matter to a very small degree, has puzzled scientists for many years.

Specifically, the UCLA researchers write, the asymmetry may have been produced as a result of the motion of the Higgs field, which is associated with the Higgs boson, and which could have made the masses of particles and antiparticles in the universe temporarily unequal, allowing for a small excess of matter particles over antiparticles.

If a particle and an antiparticle meet, they disappear by emitting two photons or a pair of some other particles. In the “primordial soup” that existed after the Big Bang, there were almost equal amounts of particles of antiparticles, except for a tiny asymmetry: one particle per 10 billion. As the universe cooled, the particles and antiparticles annihilated each other in equal numbers, and only a tiny number of particles remained; this tiny amount is all the stars and planets, and gas in today’s universe, said Kusenko, who is also a senior scientist with the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe.

Abstract in Physical Review Letters: here:

The recent measurement of the Higgs boson mass implies a relatively slow rise of the Standard Model Higgs potential at large scales, and a possible second minimum at even larger scales. Consequently, the Higgs field may develop a large vacuum expectation value during inflation. The relaxation of the Higgs field from its large postinflationary value to the minimum of the effective potential represents an important stage in the evolution of the universe. During this epoch, the time-dependent Higgs condensate can create an effective chemical potential for the lepton number, leading to a generation of the lepton asymmetry in the presence of some large right-handed Majorana neutrino masses. The electroweak sphalerons redistribute this asymmetry between leptons and baryons. This Higgs relaxation leptogenesis can explain the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe even if the Standard Model is valid up to the scale of inflation, and any new physics is suppressed by that high scale. (paywall)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “New theory as to why matter predominates over antimatter

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    “The Higgs field “had to descend to the equilibrium, in a process of ‘Higgs relaxation,'”

    The “God Particle” rested after all the heavy lifting. Sounds good.

  2. 2
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    when reading the abstract, I used Commander Data’s voice in my head. That made it somewhat bearable.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Some background notes: The Higgs Boson, to the disappointment of atheists, joined the fine-tuned club:

    Is the Higgs Boson (aka the God Particle) also finely tuned for life? So researchers think so!
    Rethinking the universe: – June 17, 2013
    Excerpt: “It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in fundamental physics,” explains (Stephen M.) Barr. “Why is the mass of the Higgs particle 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its ‘natural’ value?”
    Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the LHC. But so far, there is no hint of them. “That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention,” he adds.
    Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an “unnaturally” small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-r.....verse.html

    Strangely, the Higgs Boson, although it is said to account for why particles have mass, ‘still’ gives no insight into unifying gravity with quantum theory:

    Dark matter tops physicists’ wish list, post-Higgs (The ‘God’ particle) – October 2, 2013
    Excerpt: However, the standard model is still incomplete – it does not account for gravity, for example – so physicists hoped the Higgs would turn out to be weird enough to point the way to new theories.
    But further results from the LHC suggest the Higgs looks exactly as expected. “The LHC has not found any trace of new physics,” says Luis Ibanez of the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....lFfsxA0Eis

    Pouring Some Cold Water on Higgs Hype – July 2012
    Excerpt: “Our best theory of gravity is still general relativity, which does not mesh mathematically with the quantum field theories that comprise the Standard Model.,,,
    But the Higgs doesn’t take us any closer to a unified theory than climbing a tree would take me to the Moon. As I’ve pointed out previously, string theory, loop-space theory and other popular candidates for a unified theory postulate phenomena far too minuscule to be detected by any existing or even conceivable (except in a sci-fi way) experiment. Obtaining the kind of evidence of a string or loop that we have for, say, the top quark would require building an accelerator as big as the Milky Way.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61721.html

    “Higgs boson (The ‘God Particle’) continues to be maddeningly well-behaved” – New Scientist, November 14, 2012
    Excerpt: The world’s favourite particle is proving far too well-behaved for physicists’ liking. The first major update from the Large Hadron Collider since a particle resembling the Higgs boson was discovered in July rules out one way in which the boson might open the door to new physics, and weakens another.
    What’s more, direct searches for particles not accounted for in the standard model of particle physics, our leading theory of the fundamental particles and forces, are also coming up empty. “I would, as a hunter of new physics, have liked to see it different than what we have now,” says Albert De Roeck of CMS, one of the two major detectors at the LHC, which is based at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. “But the data is the data.”
    Since the Higgs is credited with giving mass to other elementary particles, a well-behaved one might seem like a good thing. The trouble is that the particle is predicted by the standard model, which must be incomplete as it doesn’t contain any mention of dark matter and gravity.,,,
    “The results really tell us that we’re either not looking in the right place, or we’re not looking in the right way, or maybe both,” says Paul Jackson, ,,,
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....?full=true

    As well, the original nickname for the Higgs Boson, i.e. The ‘God’ Particle, was vastly overblown:

    The Higgs Paradox: A Phenomenal Finding Leads To Many More Questions – June 23rd, 2014 | by Michael Keller
    Excerpt: Discovering the Higgs boson plugs a large hole in the standard model, the highly tested theory that shows all matter is made of a number of elementary particles that interact through four fundamental forces—strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Together, these comprise everything we currently understand about matter.
    “The standard model provides a consistent explanation of the subatomic world,” said Jonathan Bagger,,, “The Higgs boson is at the center of the model. It’s the linchpin. But there’s plenty of the universe that the standard model doesn’t address.”
    In fact, all of the stuff that the standard model explains represents only 4.9 percent of the universe. Dark matter, which physicists and astronomers can’t actually detect with their instruments, makes up 26.8 percent of the universe, and a whopping 68.3 percent is composed of dark energy, a hypothesized form of energy that is also currently undetectable.,,,
    (Moreover),The Higgs particle itself is outside the (standard) model. When its mass is plugged in, Bagger says, the picture goes wonky and the math says that quantum fluctuations over time should destroy the universe. “There are several options to fix the math, but none of them are within the standard model,” he says.
    http://txchnologist.com/post/8.....ds-to-many

    It is also interesting to note that Dr. Craig used the example of Peter Higgs mathematical prediction for the Higgs boson, which Peter Higgs had made decades before it was discovered by the LHC, as a philosophical proof for Theism:

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – Dr. Craig – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg

    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    Of interest to theoretical mathematics that are fruitful to the progress of science, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, are born out of the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’. Dyson thought Higgs work was beautiful.

    How the hunt for the Higgs boson began – Nov. 2010
    Excerpt: Higgs collected his papers and, step by step, took the audience through his theory. Dyson listened intently. He thought Higgs work was beautiful.
    http://io9.com/5682875/how-the.....oson-began

    Paul Dirac is also said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:

    Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty – video (28:12 minute mark – prediction of the ‘anti-electron’)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,

    “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

    ‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the recent discovery of the Amplituhedron:

    The Amplituhedron (21:12 minute mark) – Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272

    Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
    Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices.
    http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/

    Alex Vilenkin, famous for mathematically proving that any universe experiencing expansion must have a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, states,,,

    “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty”
    Alex Vilenkin – Many Worlds in One: (page 201)
    http://books.google.com/books?.....8;pg=PA201

    And indeed, when mathematicians are shown Euler’s identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:

    Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown “ugly” and “beautiful” equations while in a brain scanner at University College London.
    The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by “beautiful” maths.,,,
    One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: “A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc.....t-26151062

    But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics, that apparently has been so fruitful for science, breaks down is with string theory, and m-theory:

    The part of the book (‘The Trouble With Physics’) I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn’t put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.———
    String theorists: We’ve got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn’t include gravity, and it doesn’t explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.
    Nature: Here’s a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there’s only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.
    String theorists: We’ll take it.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won’t fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.
    Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they’ll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.
    String theorists: We’ll take one of those as well, please.
    Nature: Happy to help.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
    Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
    String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
    Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
    String theorists: It does?
    Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
    String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.
    ———- Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/

    A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc

    The reason why I point out the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’ is because ‘The argument from beauty’ is a Theistic argument:

    Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God:
    Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form.
    http://www.quodlibet.net/artic.....etic.shtml

    Although the following article is somewhat technical, it is almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the ‘sense of beauty’ to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted.

    Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70321.html

    Verse and Music:

    Isaiah 28:5 ESV
    In that day the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people,

    MercyMe – Beautiful
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA

Leave a Reply