![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2021 and 8 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zwigmaster.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Do the equations underlying the analysis of Baryogenesis implicitly assume a FLAT spacetime? What if the Cosmos is CLOSED, so that the early universe was a highly curved hyper-sphere ("Sphereland" in 2D). Such a highly curved spacetime fabric would be ASYMMETRIC, w/ pronounced differences between the "inside edge" of the hypersphere, and its "outside" (especially if, as seems reasonable, spacetime has some "thickness" in the extra hyperspace dimension). Could such an asymmetry help explain the asymmetry of matter vs. anti-matter ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.150 ( talk) 08:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Technically, this translates as the commutator of the baryon number quantum operator with the Standard Model hamiltonian operator is zero: [B,H] = BH - HB = 0.
What if are definitions of matter and anti-matter are wrong?
Let us redefine matter and anti-matter based on charge, matter is positively charged and anti-matter is negatively charged. We then get the following:
Matter
Positron
Up quark
Anti-matter
Electron
Down quark
A proton would now consist of 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter.
A hydrogen atom would now consist of 2 parts matter and 2 parts anti-matter.
As you can see the asymmetry has vanished, matter and anti-matter are distributed equally throughout the universe.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.190.64 ( talk • contribs) .
Effectively, what he's really done is just proposed a random, irrelevant, what-if situation. What if matter didn't exist at all? Who cares? 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 ( talk)
I've removed the following recently-added text from the article, as it looks like it was based on an April Fools joke:
Scientists working at a large physics lab in the US have recently tried to explain why such an imbalance of antimatter and matter exists, with the experimental proof of the "B-Sub s meson". They have found that this subatomic particle "switches" between antimatter and matter at a rate of 17 trillion times per second. Although this announcement has gone largely unnoticed by the public, top physicists around the world are hypothesizing that this amazingly fast change is responsible for hiding unstable antimatter reactions "inside quantum foam". The proof of this particle confirms the fundamental particle theory held by the majority of scientists as of now.
On the off chance the press release (from March 23rd) wasn't intended as a joke, this addition is still very questionable. First, the LHC (at CERN, in Europe, not the US) won't be online until 2007 at the earliest. The press release I found mentiones a "DZero" detector, of which the closest match I can find is the D0_experiment using the Tevatron (at Fermilab). Second, this rather drastic claim (of a particle that oscillates between being matter and being antimatter) appears to be based on a single paper submitted to a "Letters" journal (these tend to have less stringent review, as they're intended for results that must be speedily released, though this does vary from journal to journal). -- Christopher Thomas 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the essential argument. Is the author positing that life is not possible in an antimatter segment of the universe? Symmetrical considerations seem to imply that it is. In any event, this section seems nebulous and its message is vague.
"The exact experimental value involves measuring the concentration of chemical elements in the universe not originating from stellar synthesis."
The above sentence needs to be repaired. Michael H 34 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I agree. I don't have any scientific background, but I don't see why it matters whether they originated from stellar synthesis or not. Stellar synthesis don't make matter, it simply rearranges it into the phenomenon we now as a star. If you're studying origins of matter, the matter is matter. I don't see why it's significant what other matter is nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 ( talk) 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In the phrase "where the conservation of baryon number is broken perturbatively" it isn't clear to me what perturbatively means. Is it possible to clarify that? 77.100.103.108 ( talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does "cubic kelvin" actually mean anything? How do you cube such a unit?
Soronel ( talk) 06:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was just wrong -- fixed. Rafaellang ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Background section of the article, one of the "points of view" given to support the idea that the universe was originally perfectly symmetric is: "if the universe encompasses everything (time, space, and matter), nothing exists outside of it and therefore nothing existed before it, leading to a total baryonic number of 0." I tagged this as needing a citation, but Headbomb removed that tag [1], saying that "nothing = 0" is obvious. My reason for adding the tag is that I question whether a statement about what exists "outside" or "before" the universe is a valid scientific claim. It seems intuitive, in some sense, that "nothing" should imply a baryonic number of 0, I suppose, but is this an actual, meaningful idea that we can ascribe to a reliable scientific source, or is this just a hand-wavy pseudo-explanation invented by some Wikipedia editor to appeal to intuition? (I don't have any knowledge about particle physics or cosmology, so I don't know the answer to this question—that's why I asked for a citation.) — Bkell ( talk) 06:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the recent theory of two universes being created together with zero entropy going in oposite time directions could easily answer the barion-antibarion asymetry.
The movement (expansion) of the universe "forward" in time quickly eliminates the ability to communicate with the other universe (execpt posibly by gravitational influences). 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Worth a mention? Hcobb ( talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why some theories are in this article and some are in the Baryon asymmetry article. Should the two be merged, or content moved between them?
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2021 and 8 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zwigmaster.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Do the equations underlying the analysis of Baryogenesis implicitly assume a FLAT spacetime? What if the Cosmos is CLOSED, so that the early universe was a highly curved hyper-sphere ("Sphereland" in 2D). Such a highly curved spacetime fabric would be ASYMMETRIC, w/ pronounced differences between the "inside edge" of the hypersphere, and its "outside" (especially if, as seems reasonable, spacetime has some "thickness" in the extra hyperspace dimension). Could such an asymmetry help explain the asymmetry of matter vs. anti-matter ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.150 ( talk) 08:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Technically, this translates as the commutator of the baryon number quantum operator with the Standard Model hamiltonian operator is zero: [B,H] = BH - HB = 0.
What if are definitions of matter and anti-matter are wrong?
Let us redefine matter and anti-matter based on charge, matter is positively charged and anti-matter is negatively charged. We then get the following:
Matter
Positron
Up quark
Anti-matter
Electron
Down quark
A proton would now consist of 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter.
A hydrogen atom would now consist of 2 parts matter and 2 parts anti-matter.
As you can see the asymmetry has vanished, matter and anti-matter are distributed equally throughout the universe.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.190.64 ( talk • contribs) .
Effectively, what he's really done is just proposed a random, irrelevant, what-if situation. What if matter didn't exist at all? Who cares? 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 ( talk)
I've removed the following recently-added text from the article, as it looks like it was based on an April Fools joke:
Scientists working at a large physics lab in the US have recently tried to explain why such an imbalance of antimatter and matter exists, with the experimental proof of the "B-Sub s meson". They have found that this subatomic particle "switches" between antimatter and matter at a rate of 17 trillion times per second. Although this announcement has gone largely unnoticed by the public, top physicists around the world are hypothesizing that this amazingly fast change is responsible for hiding unstable antimatter reactions "inside quantum foam". The proof of this particle confirms the fundamental particle theory held by the majority of scientists as of now.
On the off chance the press release (from March 23rd) wasn't intended as a joke, this addition is still very questionable. First, the LHC (at CERN, in Europe, not the US) won't be online until 2007 at the earliest. The press release I found mentiones a "DZero" detector, of which the closest match I can find is the D0_experiment using the Tevatron (at Fermilab). Second, this rather drastic claim (of a particle that oscillates between being matter and being antimatter) appears to be based on a single paper submitted to a "Letters" journal (these tend to have less stringent review, as they're intended for results that must be speedily released, though this does vary from journal to journal). -- Christopher Thomas 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the essential argument. Is the author positing that life is not possible in an antimatter segment of the universe? Symmetrical considerations seem to imply that it is. In any event, this section seems nebulous and its message is vague.
"The exact experimental value involves measuring the concentration of chemical elements in the universe not originating from stellar synthesis."
The above sentence needs to be repaired. Michael H 34 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I agree. I don't have any scientific background, but I don't see why it matters whether they originated from stellar synthesis or not. Stellar synthesis don't make matter, it simply rearranges it into the phenomenon we now as a star. If you're studying origins of matter, the matter is matter. I don't see why it's significant what other matter is nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 ( talk) 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In the phrase "where the conservation of baryon number is broken perturbatively" it isn't clear to me what perturbatively means. Is it possible to clarify that? 77.100.103.108 ( talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does "cubic kelvin" actually mean anything? How do you cube such a unit?
Soronel ( talk) 06:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was just wrong -- fixed. Rafaellang ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Background section of the article, one of the "points of view" given to support the idea that the universe was originally perfectly symmetric is: "if the universe encompasses everything (time, space, and matter), nothing exists outside of it and therefore nothing existed before it, leading to a total baryonic number of 0." I tagged this as needing a citation, but Headbomb removed that tag [1], saying that "nothing = 0" is obvious. My reason for adding the tag is that I question whether a statement about what exists "outside" or "before" the universe is a valid scientific claim. It seems intuitive, in some sense, that "nothing" should imply a baryonic number of 0, I suppose, but is this an actual, meaningful idea that we can ascribe to a reliable scientific source, or is this just a hand-wavy pseudo-explanation invented by some Wikipedia editor to appeal to intuition? (I don't have any knowledge about particle physics or cosmology, so I don't know the answer to this question—that's why I asked for a citation.) — Bkell ( talk) 06:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the recent theory of two universes being created together with zero entropy going in oposite time directions could easily answer the barion-antibarion asymetry.
The movement (expansion) of the universe "forward" in time quickly eliminates the ability to communicate with the other universe (execpt posibly by gravitational influences). 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Worth a mention? Hcobb ( talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why some theories are in this article and some are in the Baryon asymmetry article. Should the two be merged, or content moved between them?