Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed

May 25, 2012 By Cindy Weiss
Thomas C. Blum, Associate Professor, Physics. Credit: Daniel Buttrey/UConn

(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – information that may help answer fundamental questions about how the universe began.

The research, reported online in the March 30, 2012 Physical Review Letters, used breakthrough techniques on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers to expand on a 1964 Nobel Prize-winning experiment. A new generation of IBM supercomputers now being installed will allow scientists to calculate the decay in even more detail.

Examining the decay of the kaon offers insights into fundamental problems in .

“This calculation brings us closer to answering fundamental questions about how formed in the early universe and why we, and everything else we observe today, are made of matter and not anti-matter,” says Blum, a co-author of the paper.

Anti-matter is described in this analogy from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research: Imagine stamping a coin from a hot metal sheet. You are left with a coin and a hole – the hole could be called an “anti-coin.” Similarly, when energy transforms into matter, a particle of matter and an anti-particle are produced.

When the universe began, did it start out with more particles of matter than anti-matter? That is the way the question was framed by another co-author, Taku Izubuchi of the RIKEN BNL Research Center and Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, NY. Or, he asked, were the two symmetrical and was there another mechanism that resulted in more matter than anti-matter?

Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
This diagram, provided by Brookhaven National Laboratory, illustrates the wide range of distance scales that must be understood before the kaon decay calculation can be performed. The lowest level is a picture showing the tracks of decay particles. The layer above that provides a "key," showing how the kaon (K) "breaks apart" into two pions. The next layer represents the numerical calculation, and the top layer shows the decay mathematically in what is known as a Feynman diagram.

The asymmetry of matter and anti-matter is one of the unsolved problems of physics. The universe today is composed almost exclusively of matter with virtually no anti-matter to be found.

The current paper explains in more detail the decay that was first reported in a 1964 Nobel Prize-winning experiment at Brookhaven. That experiment showed the first evidence of a lack of symmetry between particles and their anti-particles, or matter and anti-matter.

Since then, theoreticians have studied subatomic particle decay, but without the completeness or precision of the current result.

The decay described in the paper took place in a kaon, a particle far smaller than an atom. The scientists followed the decay process as the kaon split into two pions, even smaller particles. The length of the decay process spanned nearly 18 orders of magnitude, a range they compared to the difference between the size of a single bacterium and the size of our entire solar system.

Their calculation is a major step forward, according to co-author Izubuchi, in a new kind of stringent test of the Standard Theory of physics, the most fundamental theory describing particles of matter and how they interact.

The next step in the research will be to determine the remaining unknown quantity that is important to understanding the difference between matter and anti-matter in kaon decay. This last quantity will either confirm the present theory or perhaps, if they are lucky, Blum says, point to a new understanding of physics.

The study’s co-authors, besides Blum, were physicists from Brookhaven, the RIKEN BNL Research Center, Columbia University, the Max-Planck Institute in Germany, the University of Southampton and the University of Edinburgh in the UK, and Washington University.

The calculation in the study required 54 million processor hours on the IBM BlueGene/P supercomputer at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago – the equivalent of 281 days of computing with 8,000 processors. Additionally, parts of the calculation were done on the QCDOC supercomputer at Brookhaven, the USQCD’s Ds computer cluster at Fermi National Laboratory in Illinois, the Iridis Cluster at the University of Southampton and at the DIRAC facility in the UK.

According to co-author Peter Boyle of the University of Edinburgh, a new generation of computers, the IBM BlueGene/Q machines now being installed in laboratories around the world, will have 10 to 20 times the performance of current machines and will allow the physicists to get an even more detailed and accurate version of kaon decay.

Explore further: The risks of blowing your own trumpet too soon on research

More information: For more on antimatter livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livef… ntimatter/index.html

Related Stories

Physicists testing Nobel-winning theory

Nov 13, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soeren Prell and a team of Iowa State University researchers are part of an international research team testing a theory that led to a share of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics for Japanese researchers Makoto ...

'Spooky action at distance' in particle physics?

Jan 16, 2012

Researchers have devised a proposal for the first conclusive experimental test of a phenomenon known as ‘Bell’s nonlocality.’ This test is designed to reveal correlations that are stronger than any classical ...

Recommended for you

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

14 minutes ago

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

3 hours ago

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
5 / 5 (12) May 25, 2012
Very impressive. Modeling across that large an order of magnitude can be tricky depending on the dynamics and approximations used.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (6) May 25, 2012
"The asymmetry of matter and anti-matter is one of the unsolved problems of physics. The universe today is composed almost exclusively of matter with virtually no anti-matter to be found."-article
But wait:
"Scientists using NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth, a phenomenon never seen before.
Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF), a brief burst produced inside thunderstorms and shown to be associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected."-NASA 1/10/11
Skepticus
4.5 / 5 (32) May 25, 2012
I am amazed at the range of human's intelligence. On one end, there are people who can think, formulate, write incredibly intricate programs and build machines of equally complexity to peel back the veil that covers reality. On the other end...there are people who exist whole satisfied with fairy tales and unused brains.
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (13) May 25, 2012
I am amazed at the range of human's intelligence. On one end, there are people who can think, formulate, write incredibly intricate programs and build machines of equally complexity to peel back the veil that covers reality. On the other end...there are people who exist whole satisfied with fairy tales and unused brains.

We need politicians as well as scientists...
marraco
3.7 / 5 (3) May 25, 2012
The title made me expect for an explanation on how an electromagnetic field turns into particles on the neighborhood of other particles...
fully attached
4.1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2012
I am amazed at the range of human's intelligence. On one end, there are people who can think, formulate, write incredibly intricate programs and build machines of equally complexity to peel back the veil that covers reality. On the other end...there are people who exist whole satisfied with fairy tales and unused brains.


the situation is far worse than just simple fairy tales or unused brains. the believers of these fairy tales empower individuals who seek to dominate human existence. these individuals set social and monetary policy to their own benefit while the believers, excluded from those benefits, embrace it as natural. believers have been trained to perpetuate these ideals through their children threatening the existence of future humans. believers have already surrendered their lives according to the "end of days" concept and now selfishly work towards immortalizing their souls(obviously they care more about themselves than the children and the children's future).
fully attached
3.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2012
"We need politicians as well as scientists..."

politicians are the stuff of religion. in this day and age of information and the speed of communications in which it is delivered, if people are made to believe they are too stupid to administer to their own needs what makes them smart enough to choose someone they do not know to do it for them?
Skepticus
3.5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2012
I believe technocracy is a better solution for governing. Without having to invoke God in every other sentence at political speeches, it will be more efficient at dealing with problems, rather than getting mouthy just for good TV ratings and at polls.
axemaster
3.4 / 5 (12) May 25, 2012
We need politicians as well as scientists...

No... we probably don't. Surely there must be a way to set up a government so it operates through true direct representation, rather than always being forced to choose between several equally dishonest frauds.
fully attached
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2012
We need politicians as well as scientists...

No... we probably don't. Surely there must be a way to set up a government so it operates through true direct representation, rather than always being forced to choose between several equally dishonest frauds.


everything starts at the psychological level before realizations.
language has been manipulated and vocabulary created to support those that would perpetuate a failing social system.
considering that our societal structures have been shaped by money and religion for so long it would take a "rude awakening" situation to bring about any significant change for better in society.
dtyarbrough
1.4 / 5 (18) May 25, 2012
Why did they need a supercomputer to get it so wrong. They usually get it wrong all by themselves. A supercomputer with a weird imagination. Now that's artificial ignorance if I've ever seen it.
Ventilator
2.6 / 5 (5) May 25, 2012
After reading the comments on this article, the first thought I observed was this: the beginnings of a cyberpunk-esque dehumanizing experience within life is under way, and will likely soon take hold.

The beneficial thought I had was that no matter what, we will soon see quantum computing actualized. That sounds like fun.
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (26) May 25, 2012
It is indicative of eminent arrogance and utter short sightedness that informs Skepticus' comment. Talking about people who can "think, formulate, write incredibly intricate programs' and so on and those who accept "fairy tales" and live with "unused brains". To begin with, is there any evidence Skepticus can provide that the things they proclaim going on in "laboratories" actually do? What proof does Skepticus have to present that claims of writing equations and formulating aren't themselves just stories? Among other things, Skepticus might take the stance that machines wouldn't work they way they do if "science" wasn't correct, except that, not once do those who say that ever prove that machines work with the "science" that is claimed.
Tachyon8491
3.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2012
Would it not be nice if we could relagate all politicians to a far-past epoch ever since then referred to as "The Political Era" and ascend instead to "The Ethical Era" - technoculture in service of the common good instead of the enrichment of elite, self-serving power-groups and corporates.
Dug
3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2012
Would utopia by any other name smell as sweet?
Silverhill
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2012
@dtyarbrough:
Why did they need a supercomputer to get it so wrong.
Where did you see an indication that the calculations are wrong? The fact that the new work is better doesn't mean that the old work was wrong.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2012
... to peel back the veil that covers reality.

I think physics is about peeling back the veil we use to call "reality".
Mastoras
4 / 5 (4) May 25, 2012
I believe technocracy is a better solution for governing.


Well, I am probably similarly uncertain as anyone else about what the poet means by saying "technocracy".

But this seems like the social and political perception of people cut off from social matters. Such people consider not only as a good idea, but also as possible (i.e. neutral), an approach that sterilizes humans affairs into cases of some bureaucratic definition. ("no religion", "no nationalism", etc.)

They seem to think that, if society is understood as a mummy dried from life, then this is the best approach and should be imposed on society. No right for anyone to question this policy, period, simply because they arbitrarily decided to call this approach a "technocracy".
-.
Mastoras
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2012
Someone mentioned that anti-matter has been observed above storms, by space telescope Fermi. He may have this in mind:

http://www.nasa.g...rms.html

-.
Cave_Man
3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2012
We need politicians as well as scientists...

No... we probably don't. Surely there must be a way to set up a government so it operates through true direct representation, rather than always being forced to choose between several equally dishonest frauds.


It's called the internet....and the politico's hate it. Why do you think it is that we are able to register to vote online but not allowed to do the actual voting online.

As long as things are secure and open to public scrutiny I think we should all be voting on computers, of course I still wouldn't vote for any of those morons.
Argiod
2.7 / 5 (7) May 25, 2012
"...information that may help answer fundamental questions about how the universe began..."

Isn't this what they've said about every new 'particle' they find?
Argiod
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2012
... to peel back the veil that covers reality.

frajo replied:
I think physics is about peeling back the veil we use to call "reality".


"Reality; what a concept!" -Robin Williams
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) May 25, 2012
"I am amazed at the range of human's intelligence. On one end, there are people who can think, formulate, write incredibly intricate programs and build machines of equally complexity to peel back the veil that covers reality. On the other end...there are people who exist whole satisfied with fairy tales and unused brains."

But comments like yours give us hope Skepticus - so I guess keep hope alive - we will evolve beyond the need for magic stories some day.
rkilburn81
1.9 / 5 (12) May 25, 2012
Yes, let us assign a computer to make all decisions for us. Let's forget the cautionary tales from the Terminator, iRobot, and the Matrix. The robots will have our best interests at heart. Perhaps we can join them, despite what Star Trek tells us, maybe being assimilated by the Borg isn't such a bad thing.
Oysteroid
3 / 5 (10) May 25, 2012
To begin with, is there any evidence Skepticus can provide that the things they proclaim going on in "laboratories" actually do? What proof does Skepticus have to present that claims of writing equations and formulating aren't themselves just stories?

Will a couple megatons suffice as proof?
Oysteroid
2.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2012
We need politicians as well as scientists...

No... we probably don't. Surely there must be a way to set up a government so it operates through true direct representation

I hope not. As Churchilll once famously put it - Nothing makes you doubt the merits of democracy as much as spending 15 minutes talking to your average voter. (Quoting from memory, so sorry for any errors but that's the idea).

To wit: In some US states well over half the population reject the notion of Darwnism as anything to do with science. Cool, out it goes.

Some years back (late 1980s) an astonishing study hads shown that a whopping 75% of high school graduates in US of A believe they have the largest world population count - ahead of China and India. Wonder what are we gonna do with roughly 1bil extra people in each of those countries?

And so on.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
I believe technocracy is a better solution for governing. Without having to invoke God in every other sentence at political speeches, it will be more efficient at dealing with problems, rather than getting mouthy just for good TV ratings and at polls.


Government is perfectly designed to execute its purpose (conservative liberal limits). Spend to grow. Repay growth. Both ways are required. In some sense. The problems with government is individual based. Not every official has the same idea of what government is.
djr
not rated yet May 26, 2012
"Yes, let us assign a computer to make all decisions for us" I don't get the fear of computers - they are machines - very good at certain tasks. I just don't share the worry about computers and AI - I think they will augment us - not destroy us. Early testing is showing that computers can do things like diagnose disease better than a human. http://caledonian...s/005867
c0y0te
3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
Sorry for a layman question, but can someone explain me how can we be sure that some of the galaxies in the universe aren't completely made of anti-matter?
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2012
New record low S/N ratio? Might as well be reading slashdot.
More on-topic (at least a little), it's PRL volume 108 issue 14, not 13. Here's a link to the abstract (which could have helpfully been cited in the article):
http://prl.aps.or.../e141601
The full article costs - I guess they have to pay the electric bill for all those cycles some way ;-)
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) May 26, 2012
(snipped quote)..To begin with, is there any evidence Skepticus can provide that the things they proclaim going on in "laboratories" actually do? What proof does Skepticus have to present that claims of writing equations and formulating aren't themselves just stories?

@julianpenrod: You have a right to practice and expound your non-science-based beliefs, just as we who appreciate the concrete results of human-made sciences have made in our lives. Despite of the incompleteness of our work-in-progress understanding of reality, i.e, mankind, the physical word, matter, brain and mind, energy- we have achieved real progress in control of our own destiny. Scientific studies of genetics, germs and viruses, physics and chemistry just to name a few-have been pivotal in saving countless lives, improving food yield, creates modern communication and problem solving capability-to sustain civilization stability in the face of increasing shortages of natural resources.
Skepticus
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2012
@julianpenrod (cont.)
And to you and your fellows, what do your lot had provided to humanity? A moldy book with proclamations coming down from the heaven (!!!), rehashed, rewritten, re-interpreted by different person countless times that no-one is in full agreement of who was right; full of untestable, unprovable say sos; writing that are questionable as to their intentions, i.e., for the good of man on this physical existence, or just as a tool to create a hierarchical system of rule and control for the benefit of the ruling echelons; not to mention sowing the historically-bloodied divisive seed that put one human against another, wars and destruction. To put it bluntly: Mankind do not need such destructive callings to subscribe to an IPO of a non-corporeal deity. At the simplest terms, humans are quire satisfied with a square meal, a roof over their heads, a good f^@$k now and then with their partner, their children thriving and disease free, and getting along with the neighbors,
Skepticus
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2012
@julianpenrod (cont.)
,and to top it off, unprovable belief is not a requirement for morality. In any social group, the rights and wrongs will quickly become self-evident for cohesiveness, stability and grow of the whole, without any out-of-the-sky- proclamations. History witnessed many civilizations that prospered without such (and also many that destroyed by the monotheistic scourge expansion). Buddhism, which has no God, just a philosophy to better one selves, is sustaining 1 billion of adherents who see the " If you are not one of us, you are against us" bullshit, and are wise enough to keep their wits to themselves, and mouths shut against the bickering between the current two most vociferous believers' camps who are fighting for share buyers.
ritwik
1.3 / 5 (4) May 26, 2012
the analogy of coin is untenable.where AM is as real as matter empty spot left by coin in metal plate is not real as coin
yyz
5 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
"The full article costs - I guess they have to pay the electric bill for all those cycles some way ;-)"

Maybe, but a *free* preprint of the paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/...99v1.pdf

[good 'ol ArXiv to the rescue :)]
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
@julianpenrod (cont.)
To come back to the full circle, your incredulity and doubts of the benefits of scientific thinking and doings that are ways over your head is understandable. Arcane concepts of quantum tunneling discovered decades ago and realized in hardware by ordinary humans, which according to you is "bullshit lab stories" are used in billions of transistors that give your computer life to enable you now to make laughable questions and demands to prove a negative! The mind-like a diamond- would shine if cut and polished the right way. Otherwise, it will be dull and shapeless, and will be utterly ignored. The choice is clear.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
@ Mastoras: When i use the term technocracy, I mean scientists will be put charge of governing and solving problem of a country, or the world at large. I see that you are concerned of scientists who are solely concerned with the "nuts and bolts of sciences" to deal with "subtlety of humans politics". As I can see, you are concerned about the "mess" i.e, of technocrats (scientists) in the mist of old-style politicians. What I propose is to do away with the old-stylers methods. For example, an old mogul may be excellent at hostile take overs, off-sourcing to China, cutting costs and closing factories, discard workers in USA, for fat profits to himself and his share holders. But, to the bigger picture, does he, or does he not, torpedo the livelihood of millions of ordinary Americans? Look at today. How many big dicks of corporations has gone to to sewer, and how the rabbles of Americans are doing to make ends meet? To a scientist who has no affiliation with the big shots,
Mastoras
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2012
Yes, let us assign a computer to make all decisions for us. Let's forget the cautionary tales from the Terminator, iRobot, and the Matrix. The robots will have our best interests at heart. Perhaps we can join them, despite what Star Trek tells us, maybe being assimilated by the Borg isn't such a bad thing.


I really hope this is not an indication from where people get their political education, and how wide and deep their understanding of social matters is.

Some societies can send automatic vehicles to Mars, but their citizens are still convinced that having hundrends of thousands of homeless people is something necessary, even openly compatible with "their way".
-.
Skepticus
1.8 / 5 (5) May 26, 2012
@ Mastoras: (cont.)
there is only an impersonal problem in national, international economics, political ties, i-owe-you(s), international relations, to be solved for best solution. Why it is different? Currently, politics, economics are negotiated by alpha-monkeys, which is inescapable of personal bias, "friendly ties" and interests. You can't solve an equation by stuffing it with whatever you, your party, your backers like to put in. Garbage in, garbage out comes to mind.
Pressure2
2 / 5 (4) May 26, 2012
Sorry for a layman question, but can someone explain me how can we be sure that some of the galaxies in the universe aren't completely made of anti-matter?

I do not know of any proof that other galaxies or galaxy clusters could not be made anti-matter. I would also be interested in hearing some good proof before I am willing to rule it out.
A2G
2.7 / 5 (7) May 26, 2012
Skepticus, I was wanted to read some comments relating to the article, but I had to wade through all the non-related crap you wrote that had nothing to do with the article. You are far worse at putting forth your religious views than most of those you are attacking. Thanks for nothing.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2012
Skepticus, I was wanted to read some comments relating to the article, but I had to wade through all the non-related crap you wrote that had nothing to do with the article. You are far worse at putting forth your religious views than most of those you are attacking. Thanks for nothing.

Thanks for your opinion, but I'd be rude not to respond to comments directly addressed to me, you know?
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (1) May 26, 2012
Would utopia by any other name smell as sweet?


Well, .... there is the small detail of 'who will take out the garbage?'
Job001
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2012
Would utopia by any other name smell as sweet?


Well, .... there is the small detail of 'who will take out the garbage?'

Robots of course!
New artificial intelligence will more likely include all views rather than the ignorant exclusion of alternatives. True religious/philosophical/cultural/scientific freedom! The matrix will include probability of success dynamic estimates. Ask the question, will Muslim, Mormon, Christian or Science more likely result in Heaven on Earth? The matrix will dispassionately prognosticate!
Husky
1 / 5 (1) May 26, 2012
Maybe , just maybe, this indicates that quantummechanics might more determenistic than we assumed, but that you need an ungodly amount of memory and cpu cycles to make meaningfull predictions (and get it within your lifetime) of reality happening as individual particles engaging in billions of attoseconds event, the kind computing power that we have only recently obtained and previously has forced science to take average statistics (probabillities) of larger samples instead, with room for deviation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2012
I believe technocracy is a better solution for governing. Without having to invoke God in every other sentence at political speeches, it will be more efficient at dealing with problems, rather than getting mouthy just for good TV ratings and at polls.
I agree. Why dont we all concentrate on accepting the fact that we will never get everything we want, including eternal life and other fantasies, and let experts decide who gets what? This is already how its done anyway.

Time to grow up.
Government is perfectly designed to execute its purpose (conservative liberal limits). Spend to grow. Repay growth. Both ways are required. In some sense. The problems with government is individual based. Not every official has the same idea of what government is.
No it is designed to convince the people that theyre getting what they want while attempting to provide them with what they need.
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2012
Sorry for a layman question, but can someone explain me how can we be sure that some of the galaxies in the universe aren't completely made of anti-matter?


1. Indirect consideration: If there were signficant clusters of anti-matter in the Universe,they would have produced enormous gamma-ray emitters on the boundaries where they annihilate with the ordinary matter. Such bursts or emitters would be very easy to detect if they existed. They don't.

2. Direct observation of cosmic rays coming our way. Almost all of them are ordinary matter. Where are the emitters of anti-particles?

Note: there ARE some known (but quite small by galactic standards) volumes of anti-matter. Notably the one near our own galaxy core. This proves that we CAN detect such concentrations where they exist, even relatvely small ones. But they (apparently) just aren't there to see.

The small cluster near galactic centre is believed to be a recent creation by a cluster of intence x-ray binaries.
Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
Oysteroid: Neither (1) or (2) even come close to proof. First in (2) one would expect that nearly ALL cosmic rays would be of matter because our galaxy is nearly all matter.
And in (1) we do observe extremely powerful gamma ray burst that are unexplainable. Furthermore these burst would be rare even if 1/2 the universe would be composed of antimatter because of the distances between galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2012
Nice! Next to dark energy and dark matter the matter-antimatter difference is the third largest unexplained component of the cosmological massenergy budget.

@ Telekinetic:

The problem isn't to make antimatter, which we know how to do since the 40's. The problem is to explain why we see matter instead of only energy (from equal amounts of matter and antimatter).

@ Ventilator:

Where you see dehumanizing experience, I see liberation from dehumanizing and morbid fairy tales.

@ julianpenrod:

What is your evidence for your conspiracy theories? Since you don't have any, can you please go elsewhere than on science blogs for uttering your inanities.

(The internet you are watching is proof enough science works.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2012
@ Pressure2:

They constitute sufficient evidence for the main cosmology, "proofs" is for maths. But you can't really take out standard cosmology and replace it with ... what? ... because it is also supported by many other tested predictions.
Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
It is only a settled question if one thinks we have learned
most of what there is to know about the universe.

http://science.na...n_glast/

No one is sure what causes gamma-ray bursts. Favored possibilities include the collision of two neutron stars or a sort of super-supernova that occurs when extremely massive stars explode. One thing is certain: gamma-ray bursts happen in galaxies far, far away -- so far away that the distances are called "cosmological," beyond ordinary comprehension.

Here are two more links:

http://www.scienc...1458.htm

With the distance in hand, FGST team members showed that the blast exceeded the power of nearly 9,000 ordinary supernovae - - -

http://home.slac....0219.htm

"Burst emissions at these energies are still poorly understood, - - - -
Oysteroid
2.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
@Pressure2: 1. The gamma-ray burst you are talking about aren't anywhere near what would be generated by a large mass of annihilating anti-matter. Apart from sheer size of the thing, the keyword is SPECTRUM. The bursts we observe are very, very different from what annihilations produce. 2. Have you noticed the bit about KNOWN cloud of anti-matter in our own galaxy? THAT's how it was discovered-by the powerful gamma-ray burst with correct spectruml 2. Your assertion is just plain wrong. Apart from a few direction (like towards galaxy core) our and other galaxies are pretty transparent to cosmic rays. How else would we be able to observe them anyway? Note too that SOME particles ARE present, just not nearly enough and of the wrong kind. --- So, your objectons are flawed themselves. Please stop to think them through before posting - would help to save you embarrassment when you try to "expose" what thousands of scientsts so far have already examined in detail...and accepted as sufficient.
Pressure2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
Oysteroid: As for thinking things through, you should also take your own advice. This matter antimatter thing is not settled.

Just because thousands of scientist accept something does not mean it will stand the test of time. The ancient Greeks had a math based model to explain the working of our solar system, it worked pretty well. Where is there model used today? The same thing could easily happen to even the Big Bang itself in the coming decades.

Oysteroid
2.1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Oh, that's for sure. Nowhere did I say it's the final truth and nothing but the truth. I only listed the known and observed (observable) facts and just why your counter-arguments don't hold water.

The easiest way to explain the known facts on that particular issue is to accept there are no significant concentrations of anti-matter in the Universe. That fits the facts as we know them. After that, Occam's razor comes into play.

Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough when I was speaking about "thinking through", sorry if so. What I meant was that your objections don't stand five minutes scrutiny.THAT's why they were considered and rejected before. Like it or not, scienists generally tend to have a critical kind of mind:-)
Oysteroid
3 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
Cont.: Yes, it is possible that tomorrow, all of a sudden, we'll discover tons and tons of evidence FOR the mass-existence of anti-matter in the Universe. It would actually be a relief to remove that puzzle. It's also possble that someone (yourself perhaps?) will come up with a better theory/explanation of what we know and observe now (your Greek example). But for now, that just ain't so.
Pressure2
2 / 5 (4) May 28, 2012
Oysteroid: I am glad to see you open up your mind to other possibilities. You mention evidence without giving any good evidence. We do not even know for a fact that the galaxy cluster next to ours isn't made of antimatter.

We just have some different views of the universe, for example in my view Occam's Razor would fit a universe made an equal amounts of matter and antimatter perfectly.
verkle
1 / 5 (10) May 28, 2012
And God said, "Let there be matter." And there was matter.

That is another explanation that may be true in explaining where matter came from. Good science takes this into account, and doesn't focus solely on proving that something like a big bang happened. Instead, it focuses more on the laws that are in place and how matter works now. That approach also has many more economic benefits to all of us today.

SoylentGrin
4.4 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
God said, "Let there be matter." And there was matter.
That is another explanation that may be true in explaining where matter came from. Good science takes this into account


Good science doesn't concern itself with something that is not testable, observable and/or measurable.
Speculating about whether a god caused the universe is as productive as observing one's navel. Good scientists don't waste time like that.
Any non-testable hypothesis is as valid as all other untestable hypotheses, and there's an infinite number of those. "Did a god do it? Did elves do it? Did an unimaginably indefinable species of rabbit do it?" That isn't good science. That isn't even good fiction.
Terriva
3.6 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
And God said, "Let there be matter." And there was matter. That is another explanation that may be true in explaining where matter came from.
This is not even an explanation, but a singular, tautological claim. Every explanation should contain an implication vector.
No one is sure what causes gamma-ray bursts.
It doesn't explain the origin of matter as well.
Parsec
not rated yet Jun 01, 2012
The title made me expect for an explanation on how an electromagnetic field turns into particles on the neighborhood of other particles...

For that, consult any good basic physics text.
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2012
Oysteroid: As for thinking things through, you should also take your own advice. This matter antimatter thing is not settled.

Just because thousands of scientist accept something does not mean it will stand the test of time. The ancient Greeks had a math based model to explain the working of our solar system, it worked pretty well. Where is there model used today? The same thing could easily happen to even the Big Bang itself in the coming decades.



It is certainly true that scientists don't know everything. Its also true that much of what they think they know is controversial. However, what is very well known and established beyond doubt from direct laboratory measurements is the gamma ray energy spectrum for matter/anti-matter annihilation. We can certainly rule out this as an energy source when we don't see that spectrum in gamma ray bursters. Your hypothesis has absolutely no credibility.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2012
What proof does Skepticus have to present that claims of writing equations and formulating aren't themselves just stories? Among other things, Skepticus might take the stance that machines wouldn't work they way they do if "science" wasn't correct, except that, not once do those who say that ever prove that machines work with the "science" that is claimed.


You really are an abject fool, an idiot of the highest caliber.

The entire history of the practical application of scientific discovery is proof that the theories we have about the nature of reality actually do model reality to some degree of precision. If you knew anything about science or it's history or it's practical applications you would understand this, but you don't, because instead of educating yourself and improving yourself you would rather blather on like a retard to an audience that despises you.