Supercomputing the strange difference between matter and antimatter

November 20, 2015
Supercomputers such as Brookhaven Lab's Blue Gene/Q were essential for completing the complex calculation of direct CP symmetry violation. The same calculation would have required two thousand years using a laptop. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

An international team of physicists including theorists from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory has published the first calculation of direct "CP" symmetry violation—how the behavior of subatomic particles (in this case, the decay of kaons) differs when matter is swapped out for antimatter. Should the prediction represented by this calculation not match experimental results, it would be conclusive evidence of new, unknown phenomena that lie outside of the Standard Model—physicists' present understanding of the fundamental particles and the forces between them.

The current result—reported in the November 20 issue of Physical Review Letters—does not yet indicate such a difference between experiment and theory, but scientists expect the precision of the calculation to improve dramatically now that they've proven they can tackle the task. With increasing precision, such a difference—and new physics—might still emerge.

"This so called 'direct' symmetry violation is a tiny effect, showing up in just a few particle decays in a million," said Brookhaven physicist Taku Izubuchi, a member of the team performing the calculation. Results from the first, less difficult part of this calculation were reported by the same group in 2012. However, it is only now, with completion of the second part of this calculation—which was hundreds of times more difficult than the first—that a comparison with the measured size of direct CP violation can be made. This final part of the calculation required more than 200 million core processing hours on supercomputers, "and would have required two thousand years using a laptop," Izubuchi said.

The calculation determines the size of the symmetry violating effect as predicted by the Standard Model, and was compared with that were firmly established in 2000 at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

"This is an especially important place to compare with the Standard Model because the small size of this effect increases the chance that other, new phenomena may become visible," said Robert Mawhinney of Columbia University.

"Although the result from this direct CP violation calculation is consistent with the experimental measurement, revealing no inconsistency with the Standard Model, the calculation is on-going with an accuracy that is expected to increase two-fold within two years," said Peter Boyle of the University of Edinburgh. "This leaves open the possibility that evidence for new phenomena, not described by the Standard Model, may yet be uncovered."

Matter-antimatter asymmetry

Physicists' present understanding of the universe requires that particles and their antiparticles (which have the same mass but opposite charge) behave differently. Only with matter-antimatter asymmetry can they hope to explain why the universe, which was created with equal parts of matter and antimatter, is filled mostly with matter today. Without this asymmetry, matter and antimatter would have annihilated one another leaving a cold, dim glow of light with no material particles at all.

The first experimental evidence for the matter-antimatter asymmetry known as CP violation was discovered in 1964 at Brookhaven Lab. This Nobel-Prize-winning experiment also involved the decays of kaons, but demonstrated what is now referred to as "indirect" CP violation. This violation arises from a subtle imperfection in the two distinct types of neutral kaons.

The target of the present calculation is a phenomenon that is even more elusive: a one-part-in-a-million difference between the matter and antimatter decay probabilities. The small size of this "direct" CP violation made its experimental discovery very difficult, requiring 36 years of intense experimental effort following the 1964 discovery of "indirect" CP violation.

While these two examples of matter-antimatter asymmetry are of very different size, they are related by a remarkable theory for which physicists Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa were awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in physics. The theory provides an elegant and simple explanation of CP violation that manages to explain both the 1964 experiment and later CP-violation measurements in experiments at the KEK laboratory in Japan and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California.

"This new calculation provides another test of this theory—a test that the Standard Model passes, at least at the present level of accuracy," said Christoph Lehner, a Brookhaven Lab member of the team.

Although the Standard Model does successfully relate the matter-antimatter asymmetries seen in the 1964 and later experiments, this Standard-Model asymmetry is insufficient to explain the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe today.

"This suggests that a new mechanism must be responsible for the preponderance of matter of which we are made," said Christopher Kelly, a member of the team from the RIKEN BNL Research Center (RBRC). "This one-part-per-million, direct CP violation may be a good place to first see it. The approximate agreement between this new calculation and the 2000 experimental results suggests that we need to look harder, which is exactly what the team performing this plans to do."

Explore further: LHCb experiment observes new matter-antimatter difference

Related Stories

LHCb experiment observes new matter-antimatter difference

April 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —The LHCb collaboration at CERN today submitted a paper to Physical Review Letters on the first observation of matter-antimatter asymmetry in the decays of the particle known as the B0s. It is only the fourth ...

Is the Higgs boson a piece of the matter-antimatter puzzle?

December 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Several experiments, including the BaBar experiment at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, have helped explain some – but not all – of the imbalance between matter and antimatter ...

Supercomputing the difference between matter and antimatter

March 29, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international collaboration of scientists has reported a landmark calculation of the decay process of a kaon into two pions, using breakthrough techniques on some of the world's fastest supercomputers. ...

Recommended for you

A curious quirk brings organic diode lasers one step closer

November 20, 2017

Since their invention in 1962, semiconductor diode lasers have revolutionized communications and made possible information storage and retrieval in CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray devices. These diode lasers use inorganic semiconductors ...

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

90 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
Finally! At last, a Standard Model falsifying hypothesis.
vlaaing peerd
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
Finally! At last, a Standard Model falsifying hypothesis.


There have been many of those since the days of Einstein, so far every hypotheses have failed to disprove it. It would be "at last" if this one succeeded.
eachus
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
No, the Standard Model doesn't explain dark matter, or for that matter, dark energy. I have a feeling that the reason many dark matter detectors don't work is that there is some interaction with normal matter that pushes cold dark matter away from stars--and far enough from the sun that we can't find any DM on Earth.

Neutrinos, photons, and baryonic matter flow out from the sun. Your choice, I'd suspect neutrinos. If the zone where neutrinos interact with dark matter is further out from the sun, it wouldn't affect solar neutrinos, or most Earth based neutrino experiments.

As for light, if DM consists of particles subject to Bose-Einstein statistics, it could accumulate in points or 1-d threads that block only a vanishing percentage of the sky. But I go for neutrinos, since they participate in weak force interactions.
Seeker2
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2015
No, the Standard Model doesn't explain dark matter, or for that matter, dark energy.
Probably just as well. Curvature in spacetime seems like it would have significant naturally occurring variation just like everything else in the macro world, with no need for explaining it with DM particles. Science seems to require that there be a reason for everything though. Just in this case I don't think its going to be DM particles.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
Physicists' present understanding of the universe requires that particles and their antiparticles (which have the same mass but opposite charge) behave differently
Yes, Feynman even says antiparticles travel backwards in time.
Only with matter-antimatter asymmetry can they hope to explain why the universe, which was created with equal parts of matter and antimatter, is filled mostly with matter today.
Well suppose Feynman was right. Then where would antiparticles travel to from the beginning of time? Assuming antiparticles must exist for some finite amount of elapsed time in this universe in order to be observed in this universe, then this antimatter can't be expected to be observable. Makes you think nature is maybe smarter than you imagined.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Urgelt
3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
Seeker2, Feynman is a smart guy. He's also what he needs to be in his job as a theoretical physicist: willing to entertain hair-on-fire ideas. He throws out wild conjectures like Bill Maher throws out obscenities - promiscuously. Backward-traveling antimatter is one of them.

For Feynman, it's all about stimulating thought and conversation. He's a what-if guy who gets the conversational ball rolling. In particular, he likes playing with the idea of time, since our physics has a hard time figuring out why its directional.

Feynman's name is not an automatic tick-mark in the 'truth' column. I'm certain he would agree completely. He's operating at the boundary of the known and the unknown and coming up with crazy ideas to test.

This one is a long shot. Charged antimatter produced in nuclear reactions appear on trajectories expected of normal time-traveling particles and are influenced by electromagnetic fields just like normal charged particles.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2015
This one is a long shot. Charged antimatter produced in nuclear reactions appear on trajectories expected of normal time-traveling particles and are influenced by electromagnetic fields just like normal charged particles.
I believe positrons are a form of antimatter. They are not influenced by electromagnetic fields like their twin normal matter particle, the electron. They are influenced by electromagnetic fields in exactly the opposite trajectory. Feynman demonstrates these trajectories with electrons and positrons in a cyclotron. If I remember the demonstration correctly he moves his left hand around in clockwise circles to demonstrate electrons and counterclockwise for positrons, indicating electrons travelling in reverse time.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
Finally! At last, a Standard Model falsifying hypothesis.

No. Even if our understanding of kaon decay and matter- antimatter asymmetry and cp violations (or any aspect for that matter)were to be proven wrong and need revision it doesn't mean we throw out all the other stuff that works still too.
Urgelt
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Seeker2, going around the other way in 3 dimensions doesn't imply time reversal.

These positively-charged particles obey electromagnetic fields exactly as expected. Which is why physicists are able to construct electromagnetic traps and hold them for a time. It's also why they can generate a beam of positrons and use it to study annihilation events. Or even form an antimatter atom.

It's real difficult to tease out of their behaviors any sign of time reversal. Thus far it has not been done. I don't think even Feynman has conceived of an experiment for it, though I may be wrong about that.

The difficulty is the mathematical formalisms can't predict an invariant direction for time. The equations work just as well backward as forward. But the math we have can't be a complete description of the physical universe. Feynman is pointing this out with a conjecture that is allowed in theory but unlikely to be accurate.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Seeker2, going around the other way in 3 dimensions doesn't imply time reversal.
Nobody I knows goes anywhere in 3 dimensions. Movement normally requires time, involving 4 dimensions. We may exist in 3 dimensions, but we live in 4.
Urgelt
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Sure. My point is going left instead of going right doesn't mean going backward.
Neodim
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2015
We are creating a problem with terminology. We can not call a proton antiparticle of the electron. Positron can be derived from the electron particle, or vice versa. It can be assumed that the antimatter has many other differences from the visible matter to us. Can antimatter generally not visible to us, and therefore not determinable. Antiuniverses possible "enclosing" in the interplay between space and is not visible to us, but causing abnormal phenomena.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2015
Sure. My point is going left instead of going right doesn't mean going backward.
Ok. Maybe going in reverse would be a better term,
Urgelt
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2015
They are not going in reverse, they are operating as charged particles.

But we can see nothing to indicate that they go backwards in time. They just have different charges and behave in response to electromagnetism appropriately to the charges they carry.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2015
They just have different charges and behave in response to electromagnetism appropriately to the charges they carry.
You're making nature's job more difficult than necessary. They have the same charge moving in opposite directions in time as demonstrated in the cyclotron. As a matter of fact they also have the same mass. Why would nature create two different particles with the same mass instead of just sending one of them in the opposite direction in time?
Bloodyorphan
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
We are back to the question of normal matter persistence versus antimatter non persistence, Maybe the observed chirality of life is also related.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
We are back to the question of normal matter persistence versus antimatter non persistence, Maybe the observed chirality of life is also related.
Hard to get my mind around that one but let's give it a go. If antimatter really is travelling in reverse time (I have no skin in the game if it is or isn't) then all antimatter produced in the first half of the life of the universe would be gone - maybe into some imaginary universe. That appears to mean every day the same amount of antimatter that is naturally produced replaces a similar amount produced in the first half of the life of the universe, or so it seems. So the amount of naturally produced antimatter is stable.
Urgelt
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
Seeker2, in what way does a cyclotron demonstrate that an antiparticle is moving backward in time?

Why are you drawing a distinction between 'visible matter' and antimatter? Do you imagine that antimatter is invisible?

It isn't. Meaning it interacts with photons and electromagnetism in well-understood ways.

Even neutrinos aren't invisible - occasionally, at least. Dark matter, now *that* is invisible, whatever the heck it is. We'd all like to know.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
LOL reverse time, what planet are you living on buddy.

BY definition Anti matter has the opposite Quantum properties of normal matter, but to derive this they would still have to observe the particles using standard EM technology, hence the definitive statement of opposite quantum properties such as spin / polarity etc etc.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
LOL reverse time, what planet are you living on buddy.
The one with Feynman, Einstein, and maybe Dirac and Lawrence Krauss. Hang in there.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
Why are you drawing a distinction between 'visible matter' and antimatter?
I think you have me confused with Neodim.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
to derive this they would still have to observe the particles using standard EM technology,
Yes as in the cyclotron.
Bloodyorphan
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
Which means normal time surely, backwards in time means the particle vanishes doesn't it ?
I.E. The sensors would be picking up reactions before the event ?

Or are you saying they actually travel forward in time like everything else ?, in which case what are you on about "Time Reversed Particles" are you even listening to yourself ?
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
Which means normal time surely, backwards in time means the particle vanishes doesn't it ?
Yes I said something about that when I indicated the antiparticle would disappear into an imaginary universe. Probably it would just return its energy to the universe. So any antiparticle created today has a life expectancy of around 13.7b light years if it doesn't decay first.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
Hence my original statement, because as per our observations they don't exist for more than a few milliseconds, and are not apparent in our Universe at all as far as we can tell.

To take this discussion a bit further , I suspect the only reason people are still investigating "Anti-Matter" particle(s) is to prove particle persistence in current string and Super Symmetry theories.

(I.E. To continue to add possible proof of the theories full stop, without which they'd both be in the bin right now)
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
The sensors would be picking up reactions before the event ?
Sensors that I know about travel in forward time. The event which they observe may be traveling in reverse time. An antiparticle that the sensor picks up may have been traveling in reverse time for billions of years but if it happens to be at the position where the detector is at that time the detector will see it. Similarly normal particles may have been traveling for a billion years before it is detected.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2015
As per this article ...
https://en.wikipe...iki/Kaon

Kaons exist for an extremely short time period, these observations would imply collider experiments not cosmic origins.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
Seeker2, in what way does a cyclotron demonstrate that an antiparticle is moving backward in time?

The equation I have for the motion of an electron in a cyclotron is v=d/t=(p2-p1)/(t2-t1)=Ber/m where v is the velocity ,d is the distance, p2 is the endpoint, p1 is the starting point, t2 is the end time, t1 is the starting time, B is the magnetic field, e is the charge, r is the radius of curvature of the path d, and m is the mass. But for a positron, p2 and p1 are reversed. So they get the equation v=-Ber/m. But where did the minus sign come from? They fudge the equation by changing the sign of e to get v=B(-e)r/m. If they change the times so that t2 is the starting time and t1 is the end time they get (p2-p1)/(t1-t2)=Ber/m so it isn't necessary to change the sign of the charge to get the equation to work, only the start time and the end time. Same particle, different time travel direction. Help stamp out fudge factors!
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
Kaons exist for an extremely short time period, these observations would imply collider experiments not cosmic origins.
Mesons have their quarks and antiquarks in coexistence. How could this be, with ones moving in forward time and ones in reverse? Looks like the uncertainty principle in its energy-time form. For a short time nature doesn't know whether to go forward or backward in time. So the particles and antiparticles coexist until nature says ok you go this way in time and you go that way. But this coexistence exists for a very short time, so the mesons have very short lifetimes.
viko_mx
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
In the universe there is absiolutes thanks to which is defined the order. This means the for yin there is no yang. The absolute control the order. There is no sense to wandering why matter dominate antimater. Because the Creator of this universe is absolute being and dominates everything else in it.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2015
Or else you will be thrown in a "lake of fire".
Isn't that right, viko_mx.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
As per this article ...
https://en.wikipe...iki/Kaon

Kaons exist for an extremely short time period, these observations would imply collider experiments not cosmic origins.

What is your point? The observations concern properties of fundamental interactions, which are highly relevant to the cosmos.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2015
My point was in response to Seekers insistence on anti particles traveling backwards in time, and how they apparently can exists for billions of years, but refuses to acknowledge we have virtually no observational evidence of anti-matter outside of particle colliders which is where those formula he/she blithley mangles in some sort of attempt to make a point.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
@BO
Antimatter does occur outside particle machines:
"A very small fraction [of cosmic rays] are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons."
https://en.wikipe...smic_ray
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2015
Fair enough, but still more evidence they are traveling forward in time just like normal matter, to try and say it's just an electron traveling backward in time does not explain the inverted quantum properties, our reference frame is forward in time so if it was just an electron for instance, then the spin would still be the same.

As always when time is involved people lose the plot, and it is very hard to explain the reality, so I'll leave it there.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2015
to try and say it's just an electron traveling backward in time does not explain the inverted quantum properties,
I understand at pair production or annihilation total spin must be conserved, meaning the spins of the electron and positron must be inverted. I'm thinking at production time must also be conserved, ergo inverted.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2015
Conservation of time at baryogenesis would mean antiparticles would have to return to their previous state - energy, which could then be used to produce more matter/antimatter pairs, solving the riddle about what happened to all the antiparticles at the BB. They were recycled.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2015
My point was in response to Seekers insistence on anti particles traveling backwards in time, and how they apparently can exists for billions of years, but refuses to acknowledge we have virtually no observational evidence of anti-matter outside of particle colliders which is where those formula he/she blithley mangles in some sort of attempt to make a point.

It all goes he same direction as far as time is concerned...
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2015
I think it's a major indicator of the BB being invalid, it's much more likely that particles are created by a difference in densities of the quantum foam, which eliminates the need for anti-matter pairing altogether.

Anti-Matter after all is trying to validate the theory and explain major observed discrepancies.

IMO particle formation is taking place all the time, if you look at the boomerang nebula for instance, we can observe the process as it is happening.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2015
I think it's a major indicator of the BB being invalid, it's much more likely that particles are created by a difference in densities of the quantum foam,

There is no proof for the existence of quantum foam, on the contrary. How would it create particles ?
which eliminates the need for anti-matter pairing altogether.

Why would the hypothetical foam create electrons but no positrons?
Anti-Matter after all is trying to validate the theory and explain major observed discrepancies.

No idea what you mean here.
IMO particle formation is taking place all the time, if you look at the boomerang nebula for instance, we can observe the process as it is happening.

Opinions are free but show me a paper supporting such an idea. Even if matter were created in this planetary nebula it would involve equal quantities of particles and their antiparticles.
Bloodyorphan
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2015
So you being so knowledgeable, explain to me why matter - antimatter must be paired then ?

The entire BB is theory, one which you obviously hold as gospel, yet it can not explain particle persistence, postulates that antimatter must be an equal result of particle creation, yet we have no evidence of anti-matter beyond very minor observations, so much so we might as well say there is no antimatter in this Universe.

The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

It's obvious you really have no idea what any of this is about My2cts.
del2
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2015
The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

I read this several times and it still appears to be totally self-contradictory.
Bloodyorphan
3 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
A man made particle that happens to have opposite spin does not mean it happens in nature with any kind of preponderance.

To try and twist it around into some Universal matter creation theory is self angrandising.

Come on, explain why 50% of the Universe is meant to be antimatter ??

If I tell you all the only reason antimatter is being studied, is to explore the postulated extra dimensions of string theory can you explain to me why ?
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
There is no proof for the existence of quantum foam, on the contrary. How would it create particles ?
Well maybe except for the expansion of the universe. The effect of the foam is to create a vacuum pressure which is actually excitations of the Higgs field. Sufficient excitation of the Higgs field produces particle-antiparticle pairs. I think they call it the Higgs mechanism.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Come on, explain why 50% of the Universe is meant to be antimatter ??
Really? I'm thinking most of the antimatter created during baryogenesis was recycled back into energy. 50% antimatter would soon annihilate the 50% normal matter. That really would be a big bang.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
If I tell you all the only reason antimatter is being studied, is to explore the postulated extra dimensions of string theory can you explain to me why ?
No idea why you would make such a claim.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Even if matter were created in this planetary nebula it would involve equal quantities of particles and their antiparticles.
Yep. No problem here.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
The Higgs mechanism is not an explanation, nor does it explain why antimatter is not persistent, recycling would happen to all forms of matter so it is not an option either.

And the fact that antimatter is not persistent is why it's being studied for string theory.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
I think it's a major indicator of the BB being invalid, it's much more likely that particles are created by a difference in densities of the quantum foam,
Interesting. I thought differences in densities of the vacuum pressure arising from the quantum foam were the source of entropic gravity.

Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
It's a possibility, one that explains the persistence of matter and does not require a Higgs Symmetry split either. All that's required is for the Higgs field to have a velocity.

Of course it's only a theory just like all the others.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
The Higgs mechanism is not an explanation, nor does it explain why antimatter is not persistent, recycling would happen to all forms of matter so it is not an option either.
Yes, that would be consistent with your denial of the big bang. True, recycling in the form of radioactive decay happens to all forms of matter. Antimatter has an additional reason for being recycled - it travels in reverse time.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Lol there u go again, ok fair enough, violate the laws of action and reaction 8-\

Think it through bud, why do they say 50% of matter in the Universe should be Antimatter ?, if you reverse time to get the inverse spin you violate the laws of physics...i.e. Action and Reaction.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
All that's required is for the Higgs field to have a velocity.
You mean sort of like the velocity of the gravitational field? If the Higgs field has a velocity, where would it be going?
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
Just a simple spin of a high density Higgs field, Have a look at the pictures of the Boomerang Nebula to see what I mean, there is a High velocity reaction happening there, that's what I see anyway.

http://www.space....oto.html
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
if you reverse time to get the inverse spin you violate the laws of physics...i.e. Action and Reaction.
Spin can be up or down in forward or reverse time. Or in no time.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2015
Action and Reaction , in the Higgs symmetry Seeker.
Reversing time will not change polarity.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2015
Reversing time will not change polarity.
Right. Why would it? I thought I covered that in the cyclotron discussion.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
Yet antimatter has an opposite charge ... please explain
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2015
Yet antimatter has an opposite charge ... please explain
That's a fudge factor. Again, see my discussion on cyclotrons.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2015
So you being so knowledgeable

Thanks.
explain to me why ... ?

No idea what you mean by "must be paired".
The entire BB is theory, one which you obviously hold as gospel,

I did not mention BB theory. You are creating a straw man.
yet it can not explain particle persistence, postulates that antimatter must be an equal result of particle creation, yet we have no evidence of anti-matter beyond very minor observations, so much so we might as well say there is no antimatter in this Universe.

If you said that you would be wrong. It is a constituent of cosmic rays. By the way it is the standard model of interactions that fails to explain the preponderance of matter over antimatter, not BB.
The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

Yes it does.
It's obvious you really have no idea what any of this is about My2cts.

Dunning-Kruger in action!
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2015
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize genuine skill in others
fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill
Dunning has since drawn an analogy with a condition in which a person who experiences a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of, or denies the existence of, the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis: "If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent.… The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
Urgelt
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2015
my2cts, Dunning and Kruger were talking about tendencies, not an invariable law.

It's possible to know when we don't know. Physicists do it all the time. But it does take a certain amount of skill - cognitive skill - to recognize deficiencies in our own understanding. At the low end of the information-possessing spectrum, such skills tend to be lacking.

Seeker2 isn't at the low-end of the information-possessing spectrum, but I don't think he quite grasps, cognitively, the problem with the formalisms he's using. Those formalisms cannot explain how we experience time as directional. They work just as well backward as forward. Which was Fenyman's point, really: you can propose crazy ideas that work in the math, but beg the question: why should our experience of time be one-directional?

That same sort of question arises from quantum physics: why didn't the Big Bang produce equal amounts of antimatter and matter, and thus annihilate everything?
Urgelt
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2015
We should not regard physics' formalisms as complete. They work for many purposes; they represent great strides over earlier efforts to describe and explain the universe. But they are a work in progress.

Feynman's backward-moving antimatter conjecture does not represent a belief he holds. It does not arrive at our ears with the imprimatur of authority which must be accepted. It is an illustration of how little we understand time in physics, and how the formalisms we use to describe it are insufficiently tested and require further refinement.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
It's possible to know when we don't know. Physicists do it all the time. But it does take a certain amount of skill - cognitive skill - to recognize deficiencies in our own understanding. At the low end of the information-possessing spectrum, such skills tend to be lacking.

"How do I know if I'm wrong?"
Seven words, monosyllabic, two inches of screen space. Requires no advanced degrees, 10,000 hours of skill mastery, or words an eight-year-old can't understand. It is also a question the vast majority of humans never ask in their entire lives. I think you may be excusing a simple and willful stupidity by laying blame on the complexity of rationality. Rationality is not as complex as it may seem by its proponents.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
the imprimatur of authority which must be accepted.
Sounds more like religion than science to me.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

I read this several times and it still appears to be totally self-contradictory.
@del2
more like ludicrous ... i still can't figure out WTF it is actually supposed to mean? can you?

SuperThunder
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

I'll take a shot at clarifying this for the sake of fairness, and because it's low hanging fruit.

The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter, a priori to human engineering, a component of cosmology. See also, pentaquarks and engineered elements which can exist, but have not been shown to naturally exist outside the lab.


I reworded that as best I could to maybe make an argument, but positrons have been observed in thunderstorms, so I can't back up my own rewording.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
@ST
In relativistic atoms the orbitals of inner electrons require a positron component. Probably the same holds for protons in heavy nuclei. Antimatter is in this sense a component of matter.
Radioactive decay produces positrons and this is used in PET. So positrons are around.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Ok, fair enough.

But just out of interest if we only observe the electron-positron pairs in particle accelerators, how can we say with certainty that they exist in the natural balanced and persistent state of the atomic structure ?

I liken it to taking a ball bearing, pounding it to smithereens and then looking at all the tiny fragments , using admittedly amazing maths to reconstruct said ball bearing and then declaring this is how ball bearings are made, which of course is a complete fallacy.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2015
I liken it to taking a ball bearing, pounding it to smithereens and then looking at all the tiny fragments , using admittedly amazing maths to reconstruct said ball bearing and then declaring this is how ball bearings are made, which of course is a complete fallacy
@BO
terrible analogy, IMHO
especially when you consider that you really CAN learn a great deal with the analysis of an object, even a broken or one "pounded to smithereens"
take your example: if said bearing were found by a forensic scientist (or etc) then they could determine:
Substance
shape
likely process of building/smelting due to chemical and physical analysis
temper
coatings
manner of destruction (likely)
use (likely)

this is no different than the CERN "smashing" and learning
(call it reverse engineering if you want)

plus, you can build predictable tests to establish/falsify a hypothesis
(but that doesn't mean it is totally useless, or even wrong: see Newtonian Physics)
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
I didn't say it was useless CS, but considering we have never created a persistent particle combination from all this analysis you have to admit that we are definitely missing something.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
considering we have never created a persistent particle combination from all this analysis you have to admit that we are definitely missing something
@BO
not sure i get your point... we have six "body farms" in the US that i know of where the human cadavers just sit around decomposing
some people actually thought this was a waste of money, yet it is the scientific underpinning to decomposition and forensic analysis which determines TOD for a homicide

key point there, the fundamental research!

this is what underpins a LOT of other stuff, from entomology to weathering to body temp to scavenger bite marks, etc

we can store Antimatter for a time... we can learn about reality only by testing and validating
this is fundamental research... this is a means to either step this way or that... advance or pause and recover

we know we are missing some stuff...
but you will never find it if you don't keep looking, right?

Bloodyorphan
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
True enough CS, but we must keep our eyes open to all possibilities.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
True enough CS, but we must keep our eyes open to all possibilities.
@BO
within reason, yes
i would definitely add a caveat to that: one that is more in line with the scientific method... "we must keep our eyes open to all possibilities that can be proven" (using colloquial terminology, not scientific)

or, (IMHO) a better way to say it would be:
we must keep our minds open to where the evidence takes us
my2cts
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
Ok, fair enough.

But just out of interest if we only observe the electron-positron pairs in particle accelerators, how can we say with certainty that they exist in the natural balanced and persistent state of the atomic structure ?

This is a very good question. How can we say anything with certainty? The solution is the scientific method. This method has enabled Dirac to write down his equation that correctly describes atoms and predicted the positron as the antiparticle of the electron.
my2cts
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015

I liken it to taking a ball bearing, pounding it to smithereens and then looking at all the tiny fragments , using admittedly amazing maths to reconstruct said ball bearing and then declaring this is how ball bearings are made, which of course is a complete fallacy.

It surely is effective way to find out what it is made of. Chemical analysis works like that.
Meteorites are investigated in this way. And it brought us the standard model of interactions.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2015
Yet you still can not build simple fermion, even though you demand that your stolen equations define the reality we live in.

It's obvious you are a person who must have the last word to validate your ego and years spent learning others equations, at least CS can understand and accept the simple failures of your doctrine, but go ahead a spout others peoples works as proof of your Genius, sooner or later you'll believe in yourself again.

You still haven't told me how GRT describes Gravitational Acceleration. Einstein called his theory General Relativity for a reason. But I guess that one flies straight past your crippled search for validation as well.
my2cts
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
@BO You are like a copy of the infamous troll "benni", who infested this blog for quite a while with his/hers stupidity. Over and out.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
my2cts and stupt just tell lies here. Ignore them.

True enough CS, but we must keep our eyes open to all possibilities.
@BO
within reason, yes
i would definitely add a caveat to that: one that is more in line with the scientific method... "we must keep our eyes open to all possibilities that can be proven" (using colloquial terminology, not scientific)

or, (IMHO) a better way to say it would be:
we must keep our minds open to where the evidence takes us


Except of course, if it can be proved true.
Then you don't want anything to do with it. You represent evil through and through.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
The fact we can create antimatter and observe it in particle colliders does not make anti-matter a reality.

I read this several times and it still appears to be totally self-contradictory.
@del2
more like ludicrous ... i still can't figure out WTF it is actually supposed to mean? can you?



Why don't you figure it out? hmm???

without most important, you have no foundation to back anything up. Everything you say is for the purpose of pure evil.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
Feynman's backward-moving antimatter conjecture does not represent a belief he holds. It does not arrive at our ears with the imprimatur of authority which must be accepted. It is an illustration of how little we understand time in physics, and how the formalisms we use to describe it are insufficiently tested and require further refinement.


The very first thing to understand and accept are the things that prove eternally true, even inside a black hole, if there is an inside. Life is most important in life in all of these places.
Science and physics exist because of life.

The problem arises when people such as 2cents and stupt try and argue that point. It's only the main point. The very most important one of them all. The first, simple, clear, self-evident, defined truth in life.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2015
Life inside a black hole? I dunno.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
In the universe there is absiolutes thanks to which is defined the order. This means the for yin there is no yang. The absolute control the order. There is no sense to wandering why matter dominate antimater. Because the Creator of this universe is absolute being and dominates everything else in it.


I would further the cause by saying that the True Living God is Glorious, so we must exist, with this truthfully real existence, to witness this glory. Anything less would not be real to us. While some say God is responsible for the harm they cause and blame God for not stopping the evil, they fail to understand that the Truth is innocent. Glory is the mechanism that they search for in this article.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
Life inside a black hole? I dunno.


If there truthfully is an inside, the living truth is there, by very definition. Nothing we can observe is above the truth, as we are a truth: life, and so it defines the limit of our ability.

If it can't truthfully happen, it won't
The only real hope is the truthful hope.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2015
Seek and ye shall find. Truth maybe but life inside a black hole I dunno.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
In the universe there is absiolutes thanks to which is defined the order. This means the for yin there is no yang. The absolute control the order. There is no sense to wandering why matter dominate antimater. Because the Creator of this universe is absolute being and dominates everything else in it.

Who hires you people to come on a Science info site and proselytize, anyway !?!?

And, what happened to all the anti-matter? Well, because of it's predilection to decay at a really rapid rate(even explosively, perhaps) in the presence of matter, it did just that and evolved into the "virtual" particles that exist in and make up - open space.
Of course, I could be wrong, too...:-)
Seeker@ - just might not be "Life" as we know it...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
David@
Here's an absolute truth (that some of you might agree with) -

We don't know. And many of us will not be happy until we DO...
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2015
And, what happened to all the anti-matter? Well, because of it's predilection to decay at a really rapid rate(even explosively, perhaps) in the presence of matter, it did just that and evolved into the "virtual" particles that exist in and make up - open space.
In the presence of matter we have annihilation, not decay. Positrons and electrons don't decay, exactly. My hypothesis (actually Feynman's) is positrons move in reverse time back to their time of creation from particle-antiparticle pairs. Therefore positrons created at the big bang never even make it into baryogenesis. Isn't that sad.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2015
David@
Here's an absolute truth (that some of you might agree with) -

We don't know. And many of us will not be happy until we DO...


That's a good one. I think I get what you are saying. 'Many won't feel happy until we do.'
We can't be happy. I think it's important to understand, the best that we can, what you said because it is important. It can help to put things that are important to us in their proper light. We certainly don't want people trying to be happy, because they will never be that. If they handle it with what it clearly is, a feeling, then they can expect a genuine result, if they get one.
DavidW
3 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2015

---??
More?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.