Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe
A CP-symmetry transformation swaps a particle with the mirror image of its antiparticle. The LHCb collaboration has observed a breakdown of this symmetry in the decays of the D0 meson (illustrated by the big sphere on the right) and its antimatter counterpart, the anti-D0 (big sphere on the left), into other particles (smaller spheres). The extent of the breakdown was deduced from the difference in the number of decays in each case (vertical bars, for illustration only) . Credit: CERN

Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks.

Distinguished Professor Sheldon Stone says the findings are a first, although has been observed before in particles with strange quarks or beauty quarks.

He and members of the College's High-Energy Physics (HEP) research group have measured, for the first time and with 99.999-percent certainty, a difference in the way D0 mesons and anti-D0 mesons transform into more stable byproducts.

Mesons are composed of one and one antiquark, bound together by strong interactions.

"There have been many attempts to measure matter- asymmetry, but, until now, no one has succeeded," says Stone, who collaborates on the Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) experiment at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. "It's a milestone in antimatter research."

The findings may also indicate new physics beyond the Standard Model, which describes how fundamental particles interact with one another. "Till then, we need to await theoretical attempts to explain the observation in less esoteric means," he adds.

Every particle of matter has a corresponding antiparticle, identical in every way, but with an opposite charge. Precision studies of hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms, for example, reveal similarities to beyond the billionth decimal place.

When matter and antimatter particles come into contact, they annihilate each other in a burst of energy—similar to what happened in the Big Bang, some 14 billion years ago.

"That's why there is so little naturally occurring antimatter in the Universe around us," says Stone, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, which has awarded him this year's W.K.H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics.

The question on Stone's mind involves the equal-but-opposite nature of matter and antimatter. "If the same amount of matter and antimatter exploded into existence at the birth of the Universe, there should have been nothing left behind but pure energy. Obviously, that didn't happen," he says in a whiff of understatement.

Thus, Stone and his LHCb colleagues have been searching for subtle differences in matter and antimatter to understand why matter is so prevalent.

The answer may lie at CERN, where scientists create antimatter by smashing protons together in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's biggest, most powerful particular accelerator. The more energy the LHC produces, the more massive are the particles—and antiparticles—formed during collision.

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland is the world's biggest, most powerful particle accelerator. Credit: CERN

It is in the debris of these collisions that scientists such as Ivan Polyakov, a postdoc in Syracuse's HEP group, hunt for particle ingredients.

"We don't see antimatter in our world, so we have to artificially produce it," he says. "The data from these collisions enables us to map the decay and transformation of unstable particles into more stable byproducts."

HEP is renowned for its pioneering research into quarks— that are the building blocks of matter. There are six types, or flavors, of quarks, but scientists usually talk about them in pairs: up/down, charm/strange and top/bottom. Each pair has a corresponding mass and fractional electronic charge.

In addition to the beauty quark (the "b" in "LHCb"), HEP is interested in the charmed quark. Despite its relatively high mass, a charmed quark lives a fleeting existence before decaying into something more stable.

Recently, HEP studied two versions of the same particle. One version contained a charmed quark and an antimatter version of an up quark, called the anti-up quark. The other version had an anti-charm quark and an up quark.

Using LHC data, they identified both versions of the particle, well into the tens of millions, and counted the number of times each particle decayed into new byproducts.

"The ratio of the two possible outcomes should have been identical for both sets of particles, but we found that the ratios differed by about a tenth of a percent," Stone says. "This proves that charmed matter and antimatter particles are not totally interchangeable."

Adds Polyakov, "Particles might look the same on the outside, but they behave differently on the inside. That is the puzzle of antimatter."

The idea that matter and antimatter behaves differently is not new. Previous studies of particles with strange quarks and bottom quarks have confirmed as such.

What makes this study unique, Stone concludes, is that it is the first time anyone has witnessed with charmed quarks being asymmetrical: "It's one for the history books."


Explore further

CERN: Study sheds light on one of physics' biggest mysteries – why there's more matter than antimatter

More information: Observation of CPCP violation in charm decays, cds.cern.ch/record/2668357/

Discovery of CP violation in charm particle decays, lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-p … elcome.html#CPVcharm

Citation: Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe (2019, March 21) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reveal-dominates-universe.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2300 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

mqr
Mar 21, 2019
A better title "physicists reveal the current reason why they believe matter dominates the universe". Because the reason will change, it is a belief.

Mar 21, 2019
"...reveal similarities to beyond the billionth decimal place." That should be "...reveal similarities to beyond 9 decimal places"

Mar 21, 2019
@mqr, the facts are simply the facts. Do you have a better theory to explain them? Somehow I doubt it.

Mar 21, 2019
Well, this is a bit over the top. Even with charm, strange, and bottom quarks all showing asymmetry, it's not enough. But it certainly is another step closer to being enough. So this is a moderately big deal. The findings of asymmetry in the strange and bottom quarks both led to Nobel Prizes in Physics, so it's moderately likely this will too.

Keep an eye on top quark experiments. If this is a property of all the heavy quarks, there could be some interesting physics involved. Keep an eye on the neutrino sector, too; asymmetry in that sector could add up to enough, with this new discovery, perhaps to close the loop and show the reason for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe. Which would be a big deal, no question.

To be continued.

mqr
Mar 21, 2019
The facts change. That is why the beliefs change. I understand that people want to see scientific statements as stationary, but they are not. That is why science is so powerful. But scientists, on the other hand, like static knowledge, and they like confirmations of the things that they say. That is why scientific revolutions need to wait for the status quo to die, because they will not change their mind.

Mar 21, 2019
The facts change.
No, they don't. We discover new facts, but the same-old-same-old experiments and observations made going back thousands of years keep on giving the same-old-same-old results.

What on Earth makes you think that old experiments repeated today have different results than when they were originally done? Has Halley's Comet failed yet? How about Galileo's experiment dropping things off the Leaning Tower of Pisa? Cavendish's gravity experiment? The Earth being round? Neutral kaon decay showing asymmetry in strange quarks?

Show where an old experiment repeated today gives a different result than it did when it was first performed. And if you can't, then stop making up fantasies about facts changing.

mqr
Mar 21, 2019
-why NOW it seems that taking a daily aspirin is not so good for your heart as it was SAID before
-why at some point, <1950s, physicians used to advice people to smoke cigarettes?
-why NOW refined sugar is becoming a health issue? you can see what happened to the careers of the first physicians that discovered that it was dangerous.
-why plastics were labeled as "safe" (it was based on studies on the properties of plastics)
-why until the XX century physicists sustained that the universe was static and eternal? Albert Einstein did not like to see through Hubble's telescope to see it moving. (hint: theologicians sustained that the universe had a beginning)

I was very naive once and I thought that the results of scientific studies were eternal truths

Mar 21, 2019
Two typos:
--7th ¶: "to the billionth decimal place" I think not. I am sure you meant "billions" or "ninth" decimal place.
--in 3rd ¶ after 2nd image, you call it a bottom quark, and in the 4th ¶, you call it a beauty quark.

Mar 21, 2019
An interesting analogy to matter - antimatter concept is found in the energy principle of Suntola Dynamic Universe: The local motion energy of any mass object is balanced by the global gravitational energy of ALL OTHER mass objects in universe - confirming the Mach energy principle. This may be true also at the atomic energy levels of particle physics? Loop inverses of the general Theory of estimation (Toe) in array algebra and calculus appear to have the structure of quark flavors and their anti particles, see also the computational technology of Lehto's period doubling to derive tables of sub atomic particles using just $ 1K computer vs. particle accelerator of the size of entire universe at the site of physicsfoundations.org in Finland or at lfs.fi

Mar 21, 2019
-why NOW it seems that taking a daily aspirin is not so good for your heart as it was SAID before
-why at some point, <1950s, physicians used to advice people to smoke cigarettes?....


Humans gaining knowledge, and changing their opinions when given additional information, has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually happening in reality.

If the status quo is maintained the moon will continue in its orbit the earth (yes i know it drifts about 4cm a year) with or without humans to notice it. Humans declaring cigarettes are good for you is a nonsensical declaration of there are no humans to declare it, not does the declaration one way or the other change what is actually happening.

Mar 21, 2019
The facts change.
No, they don't....
Show where an old experiment repeated today gives a different result than it did when it was first performed. And if you can't, then stop making up fantasies about facts changing.

Paradigm.
In a relational reality what is not fact? There are just those more pragmatic.
In a platonic world, the density function is just a projection and not taken ontically.
Feynman ends his famous book in a nod to the philosopher. Infintesmial negative probability conforms to relative entropic needs for a lack of clarity, classical or conditional probability.
And yet it was Leibniz that formulated the uninformative prior, which may buy collective exhaustivity in every observation.
There are dichotomies, like locality or realism, that are experimentally confirmable. Either there are constraints to our ability to understand auxiliaries or it is a miracle we can distinguish at all.
Mind moves in dimensiality conditional truths.

Mar 21, 2019
The decay makes the collection asymmetric.
Super simple paritic arithmetic.
There are even numbers or half integers.
Nothing odd about the strange.

Mar 21, 2019

--in 3rd ¶ after 2nd image, you call it a bottom quark, and in the 4th ¶, you call it a beauty quark.

Top and bottom quarks are also called truth and beauty quarks, to go along with the naming convention for charm and strange quarks. So that one's not a typo.

Mar 21, 2019
@mqr, I'm not going to argue with you about medicine; there is a lot of inherent inaccuracy. This is becoming less true, but these aren't facts and never were.

But your last point:

-why until the XX century physicists sustained that the universe was static and eternal? Albert Einstein did not like to see through Hubble's telescope to see it moving. (hint: theologicians sustained that the universe had a beginning)
is flawed. Before we measured it, we didn't know if the universe was static, expanding, or contracting, and we couldn't know from observations until we had made them. And anybody who asserts we knew is making a category error. There were no facts about this; at best there were hypotheses.

I was very naive once and I thought that the results of scientific studies were eternal truths
That's because you don't know how to evaluate evidence. When someone tells me something is a fact, I want to see the evidence before I make up my mind.
[contd]

Mar 21, 2019
[contd]
Making a blanket statement about some physics you don't understand isn't skepticism. The right way to go is to first collect the evidence, then make up your mind. You're going about it backwards.

And when someone tells me something is a fact, I'm much more skeptical of biology than physics. And most skeptical of philosophy.

Mar 21, 2019
@mqr:
"-why NOW it seems that taking a daily aspirin is not so good for your heart as it was SAID before
-why at some point, <1950s, physicians used to advice people to smoke cigarettes?
..."

Um, you do know the difference between scientific experimentation performed under rigorous, repeatable conditions and statistical surveys of variable human behavior and possible health/biological outcomes as a result thereof with subsequent opinions based upon a very, very, very incomplete understanding of human biology, don't you?


Mar 21, 2019
Now, all of that said, the article title is misleading: Physicists Reveal Part of Why Matter Dominates the Universe would be more accurate. However, this discovery meets the requirements for announcement of a physics particle or particle process as virtually certain, it's well beyond 5-sigma.

The interesting questions this raises are these:
1. How can we check top quarks for this same effect? Having seen this now for all the other heavy quarks, this is an obvious next step.
2. On the theoretical side, supposing that we will find this in top quarks, how much asymmetry does this produce in terms of how much is needed to account for the asymmetry we see?
3. Does this get us more mixing angle parameters for the CKM matrix?

And a follow-on to #1, have we seen any mesons containing top quarks yet?

Mar 21, 2019
Why does our world have a particular non-zero baryonic number? The term "asymmetry of baryogenesis" does not explain anything; this is simply a statement of fact. The availability of the energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The method of creation of the matter, our universe consists of, was different than that in accelerators. The space and its evolution are the primary sources of phenomena in Mega- and micro-worlds. Thus cosmology and particle physics have the same active agent - physical space.
https://www.acade...e_Matter

Mar 21, 2019
Oh, and speaking of 5-sigma results, what were the probability ratings of these so-called medical facts you're trumpeting about, @mqr? Biology regularly uses 2-sigma or 3-sigma results. 5-sigma is 1 chance of 1.7 million of being wrong; 2-sigma is only 1 chance in 20; 3-sigma is about 1 chance in 370 of being wrong. These results are 1 chance in 3.5 million, about 5.3 -sigma.

Mar 21, 2019
So there were initially over 2 billion times as many particles and antiparticles as we now see. And the energy of the annihilated particles went into fueling inflation and explaining why the universe is flat. That is as long as there are antiparticles the annihilation will fuel expansion, and particles are always created in pairs. Everywhere. So the universe is flat. Probably makes more sense than my idea about the missing antiparticles going into a parallel universe.

Mar 22, 2019
Ninja'ed by DaSchneib! The title is incorrect and the quark sector is both consistent with the Standard Model (SM) and so not enough to explain matter/antimatter (M/AM) asymmetry.

The top quark is nice for suggesting new physics I guess. But the simplest and currently most promising for this topic is the beyond-SM neutrino sector. I read that it is preliminary maximal CP violation and that is precisely enough for M/AM; in 5-10 years we will know.

the energy of the annihilated particles went into fueling inflation and explaining why the universe is flat


The current inflationary cosmology has that the other way around. Inflation is an ongoing (looks eternal) field process at high potential energy (PE) and cool and flattens the universe. When it locally stops that PE is converted into lower PE fields and lots of heat/particles.

- tbctd -

Mar 22, 2019
- ctd -

Initially the local universe is out of equilibrium (OOE) and with these CP violating processes *and* one or several unknown baryon number violating processes we can get the observed M/AM symmetry breaking [
https://en.wikipe...ogenesis ].

I think the idea is that with OOE under internal phase changes (which going from an inflation field over consecutively lower PE fields towards today's vacuum PE scale fields makes) introduces some chaos even in classic thermodynamics. Then the underlying symmetries can be randomly stuck at some expressed asymmetry by the local field configurations. And if so, survival bias is why we live in a habitable local universe, most universes may look entirely different.

Or there is no chaos and all non-inflationary local universes look the same, and you have a lot of specific explanations to make. Likelihood is that did not happen - but it could, we don't yet know - is how I understand it.

Mar 23, 2019
"If the same amount of matter and antimatter exploded into existence at the birth of the Universe, there should have been nothing left behind but pure energy. Obviously, that didn't happen,"

Really? How do we know that? If, for example, only two particles exploded into existence at the birth of the U, they might never interact. So where do we draw the line? There's lots of space out there. And the more annihilation goes on should fuel more inflation and more space for all surviving particles in the form of galaxies of similar matter type.

Mar 23, 2019
cont
Applying momentum conservation, each particle pair created is blown apart in opposite directions and will likely never interact again. And at big bang temperatures they should be getting quite a boost.

Mar 23, 2019
"If the same amount of matter and antimatter exploded into existence at the birth of the Universe, there should have been nothing left behind but pure energy. Obviously, that didn't happen,"

Well actually something like that may have happened. In this scenario what we think of as the BB was actually the collision of 2 or more XXL black holes and the annihilation energy produced went into re-inflating the internal energy of the black hole hairs proposed by Hawking. These hairs comprise all of the information of the particles falling into the black hole as I understand it. This would be consistent with the quantum theory about information conservation. That is information just doesn't pop up out of nowhere at the BB and then evaporate with the BHs. This explains the existence of supermassive BHs that are too big to have been formed from accumulation since the BB. That is they were pre-existing at the time of the BB. This would be testable if we could actually examine BH colissions.

Mar 23, 2019
cont
This scenario would also support the WMAP evidence of the cold spot and surrounding high temperature regions. This would be the actual collision point of two supermassive BHs.

Mar 23, 2019
cont
This is sort of way out there but if we could examine the black hole hairs of supermassive BHs then we might be able to glean some info about pre-existing universes.

Mar 23, 2019
sorry seeker but all you will ever find inside the Perimeter of the Event Horizon is all Matter & Energy disintegrated into Planck Foundational Level gravitrons.

That are pulled into the Singularity of ever-increasing Mass.
Explaining why, all that comes out is gravitational attraction.

If there were other universes? dimensions? timelines?
The Mass of the BH_SO would have sprung a leak.
Similar & equivalent to an geyser or an over-inflated balloon exploding in your face.
Resulting in the BH_SO deflating.

However, that is not what we observe from the limited data collected to date.

I certainly have no competency to dispute the mathematics of Stephen Hawking.
Even as I dispute his conclusions such as BH_SOs evaporating or the information could somehow have survived the Brownian confusion inside a Singularity.

It would be a very, merry prank indeed, by a Stochastic Universe, if eventually we collect evidence that these are actually different phenomena.

Mar 24, 2019
sorry seeker but all you will find inside the Perimeter of the Event Horizon is all Matter & Energy disintegrated into Planck Foundational Level gravitrons.

That are pulled into the Singularity of ever-increasing Mass.
Explaining why, all that comes out is gravitational attraction.
If there were other universes? dimensions? timelines?
The Mass of the BH_SO would have sprung a leak.
Similar & equivalent to an geyser or an over-inflated balloon exploding in your face.
Resulting in the BH_SO deflating.

However, that is not what we observe from the limited data collected to date.
says rrwilliejoe

You must mean the ALLEGED Event Horizon and Singularity. Your seeming absolute certainty of its existence is still a bit premature.
IF there were other universes, etc etc and etc. Conjecturing is best done by hypothesising scientists/researchers who have the POSSIBLE ability to remove all doubt as to their hypothesis - or not. Limited data is why conjecture is senseless


Mar 24, 2019
Hmmm, @torbjorn, while that's accurate, it's also difficult to understand for those who don't know physics well.

A better way to understand it is that the universe starts from a vacuum fluctuation in the underlying metric, and this vacuum fluctuation grows; this depends on its exact value of curvature, and many such fluctuations have values that cause them to immediately collapse. Ours didn't; instead, it inflated. After a time sufficient for it to decay (measured in fractions of femtoseconds), it underwent vacuum decay and the curvature of the initial fluctuation resulted in particles.

The Big Bang didn't happen in one place; it happened all over the universe when the field from the initial vacuum fluctuation underwent vacuum decay. Matter and energy were the inevitable result of this decay. That's where everything came from.

Mar 24, 2019
Looking back over that and finding myself calling your post "difficult to understand," I find myself laughing at myself.

Very well, the right book to read is Leonard Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape."

Mar 24, 2019
.Also, @torbjorn, if the neutrino sector turns out to be just short of enough, it may well turn out that the quark sector has enough to fill the balance. If you want my opinion, that's how it's going to turn out.

Finding out the positively charged heavy quarks have a M/AM asymmetry is pivotal.

Mar 24, 2019
tsk, sillyegghead, ALLEGING you are smart enough to come in out of the rain?
Yet there you sulk,
soaking wet!
once more proving your inability at good judgement.
tsk

'nuff said...

Mar 25, 2019
...Conjecturing is best done by hypothesising scientists/researchers who have the POSSIBLE ability to remove all doubt as to their hypothesis
Really? Good luck with that one.
- or not. Limited data is why conjecture is senseless
Actually can't think of a better reason for conjecture myself.

Mar 25, 2019
"It's one for the history books."

Could be one for a Nobel Prize, too.

Mar 26, 2019
I would like to quibble over this assertion made in the article, as antimatter (as positrons) is now believed to be a common product of critical behavior in thunderstorms:

"We don't see antimatter in our world, so we have to artificially produce it" - Ivan Polyakov

Here we find that nature always has a better accelerator: https://phys.org/...ter.html


Mar 26, 2019
I would like to quibble over this assertion made in the article, as antimatter (as positrons) is now believed to be a common product of critical behavior in thunderstorms:

"We don't see antimatter in our world, so we have to artificially produce it" - Ivan Polyakov

Here we find that nature always has a better accelerator: https://phys.org/...ter.html



I would like to quibble and say you have to consider the context.
"We don't see antimatter in our world" refers to our Universe, not our planet.

Mar 26, 2019
@Seeker2

Nothing you wrote makes any sense at all. Makes it difficult to offer a point by point critique, about every sentence has an error or two that could be addressed at length.

So just a few questions.
How could the BB possibly be due to the "collision of 2 or more XXL black holes," since that collision had to have taken place somewhere in space and the BB obviously did not?
Where did the BHs come from if there was no space for them to exist in, never mind matter that could form them?

Mar 26, 2019
How could the BB possibly be due to the "collision of 2 or more XXL black holes," since that collision had to have taken place somewhere in space and the BB obviously did not?
Obvious to who?

Where did the BHs come from if there was no space for them to exist in, never mind matter that could form them?
Because the XXL BHs that we see today are too big to have accumulated since the BB. Theory being that matter doesn't evaporate as predicted by the accelerating expansion - only the internal energy initially trapped in the various forms of matter. That would be mostly the binding energy but the BHs also suck out the quarks and gluons and return them to the cosmos. So all that remains is the information retained by the BH hairs. Information doesn't evaporate - it's conserved. As discussed by Leonard Susskind in his statistical mechanics lectures which somebody brought up before.

Mar 26, 2019
cont
Anyway the accelerating U is fueled by BHs expelling the quark-gluon plasma out of matter and back into the cosmos and the U enters what you could call the BH phase. When they interact due to the dark energy they re-populate the black hole hairs and return matter to a visible form. So the black magic BB which creates nucleons from virtual particle pairs doesn't and that means you can forget about the missing anti-matter. That could have happened at the initial vacuum fluctuation which created our form of physical laws. As discussed by Da Schneid.

Mar 26, 2019
cont
A note about "The Cosmic Landscape" - as I remember this is generated from string theory and is the only natural explanation for the anthropic principle.

Mar 26, 2019
Hmmm, @torbjorn, while that's accurate, it's also difficult to understand for those who don't know physics well.

A better way to understand it is that the universe starts from a vacuum fluctuation in the underlying metric, and this vacuum fluctuation grows; this depends on its exact value of curvature, and many such fluctuations have values that cause them to immediately collapse. Ours didn't; instead, it inflated. After a time sufficient for it to decay (measured in fractions of femtoseconds), it underwent vacuum decay and the curvature of the initial fluctuation resulted in particles.

The Big Bang didn't happen in one place; it happened all over the universe when the field from the initial vacuum fluctuation underwent vacuum decay. Matter and energy were the inevitable result of this decay. That's where everything came from.


All pure conjecture, supposition, projection, and gobbledegook of the first order. There is no evidence for such infantile bedtime stories

Mar 26, 2019
Not to be pedantic, but there is a heck of a lot more nothing in the Universe than anything else.

According to my engineers thumb, it appears space is the most common physical element of the Universe, followed by energy, some tiny percent of which is matter. If this is so, then matter does not dominate the Universe. It sorta floats around in it, and the very best of it occasionally wonders why.

Mar 27, 2019
,,,but there is a heck of a lot more nothing in the Universe than anything else.
Nothing has an absolute temperature of zero which I don't think you'll find anywhere outside a black hole in this universe.

Mar 27, 2019
Initially the local universe is out of equilibrium (OOE) and with these CP violating processes *and* one or several unknown baryon number violating processes we can get the observed M/AM symmetry breaking
Certainly with enough CP violating processes we could get the observed M/AM asymmetry. So the asymmetry could grow from one BB event to the next as the U remembers its previous asymmetry through conservation of information stored in black hole hairs.

Mar 27, 2019
cont
The universe,, in effect, evolves. Scary.

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