Scientists closer to explaining why matter persists over antimatter

August 7, 2017 by Hayley Dunning, Imperial College London
Inside the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector. Credit: Imperial College London

New results show a difference in the way neutrinos and antineutrinos behave, which could help explain why there is so much matter in the universe.

The results, announced today by the international team of scientists including large group from Imperial College London, suggest there could be a difference between the behaviour of matter and antimatter.

The T2K Collaboration of scientists studies the properties of neutrinos and their antimatter counterparts, antineutrinos. Neutrinos are fundamental particles that make up our universe and are among the least understood. Yet every second around 50 trillion neutrinos from the Sun pass through your body.

Understanding whether neutrinos and antineutrinos behave differently is important, because if all types of matter and antimatter behave the same way, they should have completely wiped each other out shortly after the Big Bang. If this were the case, our universe would not exist.

Neutrinos and antineutrinos can both change between three 'flavours' as they travel, named electron, muon and . Changes between the three flavours are known as oscillations.

To explore these oscillations, the T2K experiment fires a beam of neutrinos or antineutrinos from the J-PARC laboratory on the eastern coast of Japan. When the beam reaches the Super-Kamiokande detector, 295km away in western Japan, scientists then look for a difference in the oscillations of neutrinos and antineutrinos.

The latest experimental results looked at oscillations that resulted in the appearance of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos. There was a higher-than-expected rate of appearance for electron neutrinos compared to appearances of electron antineutrinos.

Testing new fundamental physics

Dr Morgan Wascko, international co-spokesperson for the T2K experiment from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London, said: "The current T2K result shows a fascinating hint that there's an asymmetry between the behaviour of neutrinos and antineutrinos; in other words an asymmetry between the behaviour of matter and antimatter. We now need to collect more data to enhance the significance of our observed asymmetry."

he T2K Collaboration is an international team of around 500 physicists from 63 institutes in 11 countries including the UK, Japan, the US, Canada, France, and Switzerland. A large team from the Department of Physics at Imperial, led by Dr Yoshi Uchida and Dr Wascko, was involved in producing the latest result, including students and postdocs.

Dr Patrick Dunne, one of the lead analysers of the result, said: "The role I and several others at Imperial play is doing the statistical analysis to bring all this work together into a final result. We spend months checking that we've accounted for everything about our detector and our model of how the neutrinos interact.

"After all this is complete, one of the great privileges of being one of the people who does this final step is getting to know the result a little bit earlier than everyone else, which is really exciting.

"Hopefully these indications tell us that the current setup, and the experiments that we're planning to follow it, will be able to perform precise measurements of these matter-antimatter differences. Compatibility with these measurements will be a very important test for new fundamental theories of physics to pass."

From super to hyper

Although this work is promising, there are still systematic uncertainties, so the T2K team is designing an upgrade to the detector to enhance its sensitivities.

Dr Phillip Litchfield, who led Imperial's review of the analysis, said: "The future experiment Imperial is most involved in is Hyper-Kamiokande, the upgrade to the Super-Kamiokande detector.

"This will achieve much more precise (and therefore also more definitive) results simply by virtue of being bigger and observing hundreds of times more than we have collected to date. In this respect it's rather like getting a better picture of nature by having a better camera.

"But another possibility we are actively involved in is to place a second detector module much further away on the same beamline, in South Korea rather than Japan. This in effect allows us to observe the same phenomena from a different angle."

Although the team might have to wait for upgrades and new experiments to confirm their result, Dr Litchfield notes that the science is moving forward much faster than anticipated. He said: "It is very exciting that we are able to produce these results so quickly.

"T2K has been in some sense lucky in that when we discovered electron neutrino appearance in 2013, the observed effect was much larger than expected when we designed the experiment. If you'd asked me in 2010 when we would be seeing the current result, I would have guessed sometime in the mid-2020s.

"The terrific speed at which we are finding these results is a challenge in itself – we have to look at all of our models and analysis techniques and ensure that they are detailed enough and robust enough to make this more complicated measurement, not the simpler one we imagined we might still be working towards in 2017."

Explore further: Evidence mounts that neutrinos are the key to the universe's existence

Related Stories

Recommended for you

On the rebound

January 22, 2018

Our bodies have a remarkable ability to heal from broken ankles or dislocated wrists. Now, a new study has shown that some nanoparticles can also "self-heal" after experiencing intense strain, once that strain is removed.

Nanoparticle gel controls twisted light with magnetism

January 22, 2018

"Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." For many of those around at the release of Star Wars in 1977, that scene was a first introduction to holograms—a real technology that had been around for roughly 15 years.

Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency

January 19, 2018

Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency ...

87 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
From article quote
they should have completely wiped each other out shortly after the Big Bang. If this were the case, our universe would not exist.

Why would a universe without matter cease to exist? That seems just wrong.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 07, 2017
This is in the lepton sector. It helps, but it's not enough to account for the bulk of the matter-antimatter asymmetry; for that we need to see a difference in the quark sector.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
From article quote
they should have completely wiped each other out shortly after the Big Bang. If this were the case, our universe would not exist.

Why would a universe without matter cease to exist? That seems just wrong.


It might not, but it would not be 'our universe'.
shavera
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2017
Why would a universe without matter cease to exist?


It wouldn't be "our" universe, or anything remotely like it, though.

This is in the lepton sector.


It would be interesting if it ends up tying into the possible lepton universality break we might be observing in our B-factory experiments. Supposing some break in lepton symmetry and some previously unknown coupling across leptons and quarks, that looks like the roots of a plausible matter/anti-matter asymmetry.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017
From article quote
they should have completely wiped each other out shortly after the Big Bang. If this were the case, our universe would not exist.

Why would a universe without matter cease to exist? That seems just wrong.


It might not, but it would not be 'our universe'.

The first mistake rderkis made here was to change the quote from the article, "would not exist" to "cease to exist" - something the article makes no claim on. Two quite different things. A universe that does not exist cannot cease to exist.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 07, 2017
This is in the lepton sector.
It would be interesting if it ends up tying into the possible lepton universality break we might be observing in our B-factory experiments. Supposing some break in lepton symmetry and some previously unknown coupling across leptons and quarks, that looks like the roots of a plausible matter/anti-matter asymmetry.
It's plausible, and could turn out to be correct, but IMHO we're already looking at definite CP-asymmetry in the kaons and D mesons, and although it's not been announced yet (not yet high enough sigma) I'm expecting based on that we'll find it in the Bs too. If we detect it in the Bs, then we've overlooked something, I think. It's going to be interesting watching both the B factories and these neutrino experiments.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
First of all, how can we know that matter persists over antimatter in this U? How do we know if a galaxy is matter or antimatter, if everything is symmetric?
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2017
Secondly we have to give nature credit for how matter/antimatter particle pairs are generated. They are shot off in opposite directions, I should think, in a random process. This means there is a random distribution of matter/antimatter particle pairs generated. As a result of this randomness there will be clumps of pure matter and antimatter produced. In between these clumps as annihilation is going on. This produces more energy which drives the existing clumps further apart and creates more clumps. Annihilation continues until similar matter/antimatter clumps are separated. As a matter of fact they may not yet be completely separated, as perhaps with Tabby's star. This annihilation process may be the real driving force behind inflation.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2017
A similar random process exists when you toss a coin. There will be strings or runs of heads and tails. In our case between these runs the end of the run will be adjacent to the beginning of the next run. So you have to re-toss the ends of each run with the beginning of the next run. Two things could happen. Either the first run will be extended and the second run shortened or vice versa. In either case you don't do anything to change the original overall distribution of length of runs. That is, longer or shorter runs may move around in the string of heads and tails but the overall initial distribution in length of runs is unaffected. In our case when you re-toss the coins for adjacent runs all you do is increase the spatial separation between runs. This just makes it easier for groups of matter and antimatter particles to set up their separate domains. Re-tossing being similar to annihilation followed by another particle pair creation. Or so it would seem.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
First of all, how can we know that matter persists over antimatter in this U? How do we know if a galaxy is matter or antimatter, if everything is symmetric?


Intergalactic space between galaxies is not a perfect vacuum.
If some galaxies were composed of antimatter they would produce gamma-rays when encountering normal matter and since everything is symmetrical, normal matter galaxies would also produce gamma-rays when encountering anti-matter particles originating from anti-matter galaxies and anti-matter gas clouds.
We don't see these gamma-rays, so no anti-matter galaxies within sight.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
I should add that given enough tosses any length of runs is possible. As a matter of fact it is possible that there would be no tails tossed, for instance. In our case this would mean all matter particles are shot off in the same direction and antimatter particles in the opposite direction, setting up completely separate domains for matter and antimatter. Who knows? Nature may have nothing else to do and plenty of time to do it.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
We don't see these gamma-rays, so no anti-matter galaxies within sight.
Theory being the energy of these gamma rays goes into more particle pair production, if not more separation between matter and antimatter domains. I do presume there are lots of gamma rays out there, but exactly where they would come from I don't see how you would know.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Intergalactic space might not be a perfect vacuum, but it is still mostly empty.
Sources of gamma-rays are clearly visible, we have had Gamma-ray astronomy since the 60's.

https://en.wikipe...stronomy

Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
In any case, how far apart are your " matter and antimatter domains"?

Particles will still have to mix where they join, annihilate each other and produce gamma-rays.

Are they so large that the observable universe fits wholly inside one of the "matter domains"?

That would be quite a few tails tossed in a row.
gsardin
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
The matter asymmetry of the Universe has a straightforward answer: antiprotons have degraded into electrons, a not only essential way to avoid the overall annihilation, but also the way to come up with the atomic structure through the constructive association of protons and electrons. More information is accessible at:

https://www.resea...tructure

Still further information at:

https://www.resea...ibutions
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
First of all, how can we know that matter persists over antimatter in this U? How do we know if a galaxy is matter or antimatter, if everything is symmetric?


Intergalactic space between galaxies is not a perfect vacuum.
If some galaxies were composed of antimatter they would produce gamma-rays when encountering normal matter and since everything is symmetrical, normal matter galaxies would also produce gamma-rays when encountering anti-matter particles originating from anti-matter galaxies and anti-matter gas clouds.
We don't see these gamma-rays, so no anti-matter galaxies within sight.

We do see gamma ray burst that do not have a good explanation. Matter antimatter annihilation could explain them nicely.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Intergalactic space might not be a perfect vacuum, but it is still mostly empty.
Sources of gamma-rays are clearly visible, we have had Gamma-ray astronomy since the 60's.

https://en.wikipe...stronomy


We do see gamma ray sources on daily basis. Besides you are thinking in terms of a few billion years the universe may have had an infinite amount of time to accomplish the separation of matter and antimatter into separate galaxies or even galaxy clusters.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Are there antimatter galaxies?

https://phys.org/...ies.html
Dingbone
Aug 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Are there antimatter galaxies?

https://phys.org/...ies.html

I do not consider this article the proof needed to dismiss a universe made up of half matter and antimatter. For one thing the gas between a matter antimatter galaxy may collide from time to time. The only thing is this time to time may be once in 10,000's of years, or just particle by particle which we cannot detect at the present time at such vast distances. . We already see gamma ray burst on a daily basis so powerful they are hard to explain. They could be rogue run away matter stars colliding into a antimatter star.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
In any case, how far apart are your " matter and antimatter domains"?
I wouldn't expect them to be regularly spaced if the opposite directions of motion at creation of particle/antiparticle pairs is random. However in my occasional waking periods watching the science channel I remember something about regularly spaced gamma ray sources in a nearly straight line described as free gamma ray bursts and people thinking this might be some form of ET messaging. So it could be that matter/antimatter separate into their own domains even from an unusually uniform initial distribution. Not certain how this would work though. It might be just a string of runs of similar length in my coin toss analogy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
Particles will still have to mix where they join, annihilate each other and produce gamma-rays.
My guess is during annihilation the separate domains will be separated even further by the energy produced by annihilation, giving time and more space for the matter within these domains to gravitate. Also fueling inflation.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Are they so large that the observable universe fits wholly inside one of the "matter domains"?
I don't think so, but then...
That would be quite a few tails tossed in a row.
Probably quite a few too many.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
...more space for the matter within these domains to gravitate.
Note that as the matter within these domains gravitate the less likely it is that they will interact with another domain of the opposite matter type.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
I do not consider this article the proof needed to dismiss a universe made up of half matter and antimatter.


I don't think the matter is 100% settled yet, but the AMS-02 on the ISS has been looking for a while.

https://phys.org/...tic.html
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
...during annihilation the separate domains will be separated even further by the energy produced by annihilation, giving time and more space for the matter within these domains to gravitate. Also fueling inflation.
Also note as gravitation continues inflation decreases. No surprise here.
nikola_milovic_378
Aug 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Aug 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Again, there exists only protons and electrons. These are spherical fields. Anti- makes no sense!
rderkis
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Again, there exists only protons and electrons. These are spherical fields. Anti- makes no sense!


What does "No Sense" have to do with it?

"Spooky action at a distance" makes no sense, yet it has been proven by experiments over and over.
Perhaps we just don't know everything.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Again, there exists only protons and electrons. These are spherical fields. Anti- makes no sense!


What does "No Sense" have to do with it?

"Spooky action at a distance" makes no sense, yet it has been proven by experiments over and over.
Perhaps we just don't know everything.

What you say adds nothing, only that you believe the nonsense!
rderkis
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Perhaps we just don't know everything.
What you say adds nothing, only that you believe the nonsense!


Is that a intentional pun or just nonsense?
I am sorry I said "we" what I should have said is "everyone else but you" does not know everything. :-) Better?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
Perhaps we just don't know everything.
What you say adds nothing, only that you believe the nonsense!


Is that a intentional pun or just nonsense?
I am sorry I said "we" what I should have said is "everyone else but you" does not know everything. :-) Better?

OK, wanna play ring around the rosey, or run in a circle until you win to make no point!
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
OK, wanna play ring around the rosey, or run in a circle until you win to make no point!


Please forgive me, I know you say exactly what you mean. But I don't want to play any games with you. Please don't let that hurt your feelings and please don't ask me again. And just to let you know what you said sounded a lot like a come on.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
OK, wanna play ring around the rosey, or run in a circle until you win to make no point!


Please forgive me, I know you say exactly what you mean. But I don't want to play any games with you. Please don't let that hurt your feelings and please don't ask me again. And just to let you know what you said sounded a lot like a come on.

OK, you are not a scientist. This sounds like BS Politics. I'll help you. There only exist these spherical fields! Say something relevant. Try to think, charge!

Forgive you? You've done absolutely nothing, it's ignorable, duh. I'm just your critic.

Come on? .. get married or divorced; but not here!
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
Try to think, charge!
Forgive you? You've done absolutely nothing, it's ignorable, duh. I'm just your critic.
Come on? .. get married or divorced; but not here!

Wow, no fury like a woman scorned! :-)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
Particles will still have to mix where they join, annihilate each other and produce gamma-rays.
My guess is during annihilation the separate domains will be separated even further by the energy produced by annihilation, giving time and more space for the matter within these domains to gravitate. Also fueling inflation.
Problem there, @Seeker, is that the type of gravitation involved in inflation and dark energy is different from the type created by energy. It's a different term in the left hand side of the Einstein Field Equations.

...more space for the matter within these domains to gravitate.
Note that as the matter within these domains gravitate the less likely it is that they will interact with another domain of the opposite matter type.
Noteworthy that if the entire visible universe is within a single domain we would not see annihilation in intergalactic space or at the edges of galaxies.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Problem there, @Seeker, is that the type of gravitation involved in inflation and dark energy is different from the type created by energy. It's a different term in the left hand side of the Einstein Field Equations.
I interpret the gradients as being gradients in the energy density of spacetime, or the dark energy. Which density is greatest in regions not displaced by quantized mass, such as between galaxies.
Noteworthy that if the entire visible universe is within a single domain we would not see annihilation in intergalactic space or at the edges of galaxies.
Duly noted. But I don't see any pure domains yet. Disappearing stars such as Tabby's star would indicate to me our own galaxy is not even a pure domain. The only pure domains I can see are the two black holes remaining after inflation has turned to deflation. Setting up the next BB when these two black holes merge. All of which are powered by the dark energy.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
I interpret the gradients as being gradients in the energy density of spacetime, or the dark energy.
And the evidence says that the more the space between filaments of mass grows, the faster the filaments move apart.

Which density is greatest in regions not displaced by quantized mass, such as between galaxies.
I don't know what this means. I think the evidence is clear.

But I don't see any pure domains yet.
The entire visible universe appears to be one based on the evidence.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
...the evidence says that the more the space between filaments of mass grows, the faster the filaments move apart.
Sounds right. The more space between filaments means more energy density of spacetime to move the filaments more apart.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not differentiating between energy and dark energy. They're different and they have different effects.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Which density is greatest in regions not displaced by quantized mass, such as between galaxies.
I don't know what this means. I think the evidence is clear.
I think you know what density means. Quantized mass is a form of quantized energy which is trapped inside spacetime and inhibits the expanding action of the surrounding spacetime. I think of it as a sort of pressure.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not differentiating between energy and dark energy. They're different and they have different effects.
Dark energy at the time of particle creation is trapped or quantized inside of matter at this time of particle creation. It is the internal energy contained in mass. It is not the dark energy which we observe today (except inside accelerators) because today the dark energy density is much less. The effect is dead areas in the dark energy density (matter) which energy density we presently experience and which inhibit the expansion of spacetime. Resulting in - you guessed it - gravity! :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
I think you know what density means.
I don't think you know what dark energy means; its effect on what you normally think of as "density" is counter-intuitive and doesn't support your argument.

Dark energy at the time of particle creation is trapped or quantized inside of matter at this time of particle creation
I don't know what this means either. Dark energy isn't "in particles;" it's an inherent property of empty space. Remember that it's the spaces between the filaments that do the expanding, not the filaments themselves. Dark energy isn't strong enough to overcome gravity in the filaments.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
The entire visible universe appears to be one based on the evidence.
Sure hope so. Evidence being - as long as antimatter is being created we are not pure. Also gravity has not pulled us into a black hole yet which is the ultimate pure domain. Of course at the BB there was lots more pair creation and annihilation going on. Annihilation and gravity has not yet had time enough to split us into pure domains. Good thing too.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Dark energy at the time of particle creation is trapped or quantized inside of matter at this time of particle creation
I don't know what this means either. Dark energy isn't "in particles;" it's an inherent property of empty space.
Yes bad sentence structure. Dark energy and quantum fluctuations at the time of particle pair creation is what goes into the internal energy of matter. But that energy density is generally much less today.
Remember that it's the spaces between the filaments that do the expanding, not the filaments themselves. Dark energy isn't strong enough to overcome gravity in the filaments.
Percisely. The filaments don't expand because they are regions of less dense dark energy than their surroundings. It's the stuff around them that does the expansion and pushes them apart.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
Evidence being - as long as antimatter is being created we are not pure.
Given the lack of any gamma rays from inter-domain annihilation, I don't know what this means.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I don't think you know what dark energy means;
Well I think it means the energy density of spacetime.
its effect on what you normally think of as "density" is counter-intuitive and doesn't support your argument.
I don't see energy density as being anything counter-intuitive. Gravity, yes, but energy density, no.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Evidence being - as long as antimatter is being created we are not pure.
Given the lack of any gamma rays from inter-domain annihilation, I don't know what this means.
For this idea to work it would seem to be necessary for the gamma rays or whatever energy is released at annihilation to be used in further separating the domains - like the force behind inflation or maybe even the expansion of spacetime. Presumably when this annihilation reaches some inflection point deflation would begin.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I don't think you know what dark energy means;
Well I think it means the energy density of spacetime.
Nope. Energy has positive gravity. E=mc² and like that.

its effect on what you normally think of as "density" is counter-intuitive and doesn't support your argument.
I don't see energy density as being anything counter-intuitive.
I said "dark matter." You're still conflating this with "energy density."

Gravity, yes,
This is obviously wrong given we live in a gravity field. Gravity is intuitive.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I don't think you know what dark energy means;
Well I think it means the energy density of spacetime.
Nope. Energy has positive gravity. E=mc² and like that.
So the energy density of spacetime is negative? Oops.
I said "dark matter." You're still conflating this with "energy density."

Guilty as charged.

Gravity, yes,
This is obviously wrong given we live in a gravity field. Gravity is intuitive.
Counter-intuitive based on the idea that matter inhibits spacetime expansion, not increasing it.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I said "dark matter." You're still conflating this with "energy density."
I hope what you really meant was dark energy. I'm hoping we're not bringing up another hot topic. We should have enough on our plate already. But you're right if what you meant was I'm still conflating dark energy with energy density.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
You're correct I did mean "dark energy." My bad.

Dark energy doesn't mean "energy density of spacetime" as you mean it. Energy density of spacetime as you mean it makes positive gravity, that which draws matter closer together. Dark energy pushes matter farther apart. But it's not strong enough to act against gravity.

Yes, the energy density of empty spacetime with no matter in it is negative. It's in the third term of the Einstein Field Equations. It's called the "cosmological term," and its main operand is Λ. That's Λ as in ΛCDM. If you're going to reject the EFE you'll need some justification, something better than "I don't like dark energy."
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I would say there is some more or less fixed dark energy which we operate under. But the distribution of that dark energy is what I call the energy density. It's how the dark energy is distributed that makes the wheels turn. As for empty spacetime it would seem to have zero energy else it wouldn't be very empty. I'm thinking the cosmological term is a term used to describe the expansion of spacetime. Which I don't think is going to continue to expand after the forces of annihilation (positive energy if you must) is countered by the force of gravity (negative energy if you must).
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I would think all the dark energy in our U was tied up in the two black holes forming the BB. But that doesn't mean there aren't other black holes which could form other multiverses with a different dark energy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Energy has positive gravity. E=mc² and like that.
I notice you avoided saying matter has positive gravity. It doesn't have a gravitational force it gets squeezed out by the positive gravitational force of expanding spacetime. The easiest way for nature to give it the squeeze is to round it up and put it away in as small a volume as possible. That isolates it so spacetime can continue with its expansion with as little interference from matter as possible. Ergo, gravity. Round up time. Actually this process gets kick started by electrostatic attraction.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
Evidence being - as long as antimatter is being created we are not pure.
Given the lack of any gamma rays from inter-domain annihilation, I don't know what this means.
Well as far as intergalactic space is concerned there isn't enough matter/antimatter concentration to have any annihilation. Most of it occurred during baryogenesis. A word about baryogenesis - At that time the energy of matter/antimatter particle pairs shooting off in opposite directions was very high because the energy density of spacetime was very high causing high temperature. So the particle pairs got a big kick. Really big at these temperatures and very rapid inflation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Another word about domain generation during barygenesis: For every particle pair generated there is a 50-50 chance the particles will fall into one of their particular matter-type domains. Else the annihilation energy is returned to the energy density of baryogenesis and another pair will be generated. It's like double or nothing. Keep it going and you're eventually going to have a winner.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
If the current ΛCDM Standard Model of cosmology is correct, then "dark energy" is the same "density" everywhere. Energy (and as I pointed out above, mass and energy are equivalent) has a differing density from place to place; dark energy doesn't. The energy density is high inside filaments, and low inside voids. Dark energy (Λ) is very weak, so anyplace there's much energy, the gravity from the energy overwhelms dark energy, but in the voids, the dark energy takes over since there's not much energy.

So let's start there.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
If the current ΛCDM Standard Model of cosmology is correct, then "dark energy" is the same "density" everywhere. Energy (and as I pointed out above, mass and energy are equivalent) has a differing density from place to place; dark energy doesn't.
Percisely, I would say, considering the dark energy is the energy driving spacetime expansion.
The energy density is high inside filaments, and low inside voids.
This is where the counter-intuitive stuff takes over. The energy density is lower inside filaments because it is stretched out or warped by gravity.
Dark energy (Λ) is very weak, so anyplace there's much energy, the gravity from the energy overwhelms dark energy, but in the voids, the dark energy takes over since there's not much energy.
I think gravity comes from gradients in the dark energy, weak as it may be. The trick is if there is a sharp change in the dark energy, weak as it is, there is very strong gravity.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Let's try this one more time:
If the current ΛCDM Standard Model of cosmology is correct, then "dark energy" is the same "density" everywhere.
So on the average spacetime is flat. That doesn't mean the density is the same everywhere. It just means it averages out the peaks and voids in any direction you look to the same density. So how or why would this occur? During baryogenesis there is no preferred direction in which the real particles will go during pair creation. It's purely random.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
I am confused about one thing. They know of dark matter's existance in only one way. That way is by the warping of spacetime.
We know that spacetime can be warped by the mass of an object.
How do we know that mass is the only thing that can warp spacetime?
It would seem to me that we have explored the possibility that dark matter is matter as we understand it(with mass) and so far can't find it.
Perhaps it is time to realize that perhaps that warping of the universe is caused by some other force we don't yet understand and not by matter's mass at all.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Dark energy (Λ) is very weak,
Hold da phone. Have I been snookered? Dark energy comprises like 73% of the energy budget of the U if I remember correctly.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Percisely, I would say, considering the dark energy is the energy driving spacetime expansion.
It's not really useful to think of dark energy as a "the" type of thing. It's a property of spacetime in our universe. The "the" type of thing is spacetime itself.

This is where the counter-intuitive stuff takes over. The energy density is lower inside filaments because it is stretched out or warped by gravity.
No. The energy density is *higher* inside filaments because of their matter density. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent, and neither is equivalent to dark energy. E=mc² as I have repeated now three times (though the second time only by reference).

[contd]
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
[contd]
I think gravity comes from gradients in the dark energy, weak as it may be. The trick is if there is a sharp change in the dark energy, weak as it is, there is very strong gravity.
No. Gravity comes from energy (and mass, which is equivalent to energy). Dark energy is a characteristic property of spacetime. They are not equivalent, and the only place they get mixed together is in the EFE; and they're different terms on the left side.

So on the average spacetime is flat.
No, the fact dark energy is the same everywhere doesn't imply flatness at all. If it weren't very weak then that would imply spacetime is highly curved and negatively so. It would overcome gravity and rip the energy in the universe apart everywhere.

That doesn't mean the density is the same everywhere.
But you just agreed it is! Make up your cotton-pickin' mind!

[contd]
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
[contd]
It just means it averages out the peaks and voids in any direction you look to the same density.
I don't know what this means. If dark energy is the same everywhere, how can there be peaks and valleys in it? It doesn't make any sense to say something like this. Dark energy is a property of spacetime itself. It's not a "thing" that varies from place to place.

So how or why would this occur?
Because spacetime is four dimensional, and one of those dimensions is hyperbolic. It's an intrinsic property of spacetime.

During baryogenesis there is no preferred direction in which the real particles will go during pair creation. It's purely random.
I don't see why you think this has anything to do with it.

Hold da phone. Have I been snookered? Dark energy comprises like 73% of the energy budget of the U if I remember correctly.
This highly misleading statistic has misled a lot of other people than you.

[contd]
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
... They know of dark matter's existance in only one way. That way is by the warping of spacetime.
I was wondering about that.
We know that spacetime can be warped by the mass of an object.
How do we know that mass is the only thing that can warp spacetime?
The pull of gravity between galaxies, for instance, warps or stretches spacetime
It would seem to me that we have explored the possibility that dark matter is matter as we understand it(with mass) and so far can't find it.
Not in the particles anyway.
Perhaps it is time to realize that perhaps that warping of the universe is caused by some other force we don't yet understand and not by matter's mass at all.
I don't think we understand gravity because it is quite counter-intuitive.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
[contd]
Dark energy isn't energy or matter as we normally conceive of them. It doesn't make any sense to put dark energy into a bucket with energy or matter; it's like saying the "water budget of the sea" and then trying to include sand in it. The sand isn't water.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
...dark energy...If it weren't very weak...
I don't think 73% is very weak.

That doesn't mean the density is the same everywhere.
But you just agreed it is!
No way Jose. Only on the average in whatever direction you look.
Make up your cotton-pickin' mind!
Thought I did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Probably all that counter-intuitive stuff has you confused.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
Dark energy isn't energy or matter as we normally conceive of them. It doesn't make any sense to put dark energy into a bucket with energy or matter; it's like saying the "water budget of the sea" and then trying to include sand in it. The sand isn't water.
You did better with e=mc*2, the internal energy of matter. Oddly, high density dark energy at baryogenesis is what goes into producing e=mc*2. So dark energy after baryogenesis lost some of it's water and replaced it with some of the sandy stuff. Still lots of it left though.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
Dark energy isn't energy or matter as we normally conceive of them. It doesn't make any sense to put dark energy into a bucket with energy or matter; it's like saying the "water budget of the sea" and then trying to include sand in it. The sand isn't water.
You did better with e=mc*2, the internal energy of matter. Oddly, high density dark energy at baryogenesis is what goes into producing e=mc*2. So dark energy after baryogenesis lost some of it's water and replaced it with some of the sandy stuff. Still lots of it left though.

h nu = E; What's that, quantum energy? Isn't this only the energy being propagated, where is the non-propagated energy? Oh forgot, you call that dark energy! Anyway, that's what Einstein got when he played with these equations. Not holistic or complete.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
...dark energy...If it weren't very weak...
I don't think 73% is very weak.
That's not a measure of the strength of the force, and in any case I already told you they're not the same. You're trying to combine apples and bananas and call them all apples, and then claim that apples weigh a pound because they're red.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
...dark energy...If it weren't very weak...
I don't think 73% is very weak.
That's not a measure of the strength of the force,
Ah yes. The dark force. I always wondered about that.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
Sometimes I wonder why we need these scientists and their research at all. You guys already know all the answers.
President Trump must be right and this is wasted money when the answers are already known by the commenters here.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not getting it. We experience spatial curvature as a force.

And apples still don't weigh a pound because they're red.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
No one seems to realize how stupid this is. antimatter is a misnomer. Matter with different orbiters appear to be anti-matter due to the violent instability.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not getting it. We experience spatial curvature as a force.
Ah yes, the dark force. I always wondered about that.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not getting it. We experience spatial curvature as a force.
As if such a curvature ever existed. More likely the dark force is gravity. Good hint though.
And apples still don't weigh a pound because they're red.
Maybe, but it actually depends on altitude more than color. Another good hint though.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2017
@Seeker, you're still not getting it. We experience spatial curvature as a force.
As if such a curvature ever existed. More likely the dark force is gravity. Good hint though.
And apples still don't weigh a pound because they're red.
Maybe, but it actually depends on altitude more than color. Another good hint though.

If you visualize two diametrical spherical fields separating then you know.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
...dark energy...If it weren't very weak...
I don't think 73% is very weak.
That's not a measure of the strength of the force,
So energy is not a measure of the force. Good point. The force, I presume, being gravity. So where does all this energy go? Must be the expansion of spacetime. Except e=mc*2, maybe 4%. Then there is the dark matter, maybe 23%. This leaves 73% to go into expansion, the dark energy. So the total energy is the combination of apples, oranges, and mushrooms (pun noted). Hard to get your mind around, I know. So what happened with the force of gravity? Comes from differential expansion of spacetime due to dark matter and e=mc*2. That is, a differential expansion of the 73%. But how could e=mc*2 cause a differential expansion of spacetime? Well it prevents spacetime from expanding as much in regions of spacetime locked up in matter. And the rest of the differential expansion is due to we don't know what so we call it dark matter. Which I'd say
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
cont
would be some natural turbulence coming from the dark energy. Expansion does not come with a guarantee of uniformity everywhere, especially in the presence of matter and the pull of gravity.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
@Seeker, you should read this article: https://blogs.sci...xistent/
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
@Seeker, you should read this article: https://blogs.sci...xistent/
So I did and the amazing thing is how much buzz this topic is getting. As I remember reading George Gamov's 1947 book 123 Infinity he said the universe expands from every point inside the universe. Sort of like bread dough I think was his example. But I don't know that he understood the implifications of this idea. That is the probability of a new element of spacetime dN being created is proportional to the number N of existing spacetime elements. The classical differential equation for exponential (accelerating) expansion, with the constant of proportionality equal to the Hubble constant if I remember correctly.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
cont
Note I can't remember Gamov saying anything about Hubble but he might have.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
A thought about exponential expansion - if it wasn't so the idea of merging black holes triggering the BB wouldn't be possible because spacetime expansion keeps up the pressure on black holes to keep gravitating no matter how much spacetime expands. Otherwise the black holes would just eventually fall apart if they didn't evaporate first.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
Are we still doing science with blinders on?

The universe only contains the diametrical spherical fields. We exist in this sea. Their presence only is greater than zero everywhere!

We only look at aggregations. You can do this in your heads. The fields are everywhere, even microscopically. What are you looking for, magic anti-?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 13, 2017
By the way would not the field be greater than zero and approach some maximum. Are we smart enough to understand how we may create either a thermodynamic of electrical potential between that and an object of our design? Tesla did.

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.