The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did matter and anti-matter meet in the early Universe?  (Read 16821 times)

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #25 on: 26/01/2015 18:11:30 »
Positronium can be regarded as a "sort of light hydrogen" because it involves two subatomic particles of equal and opposite charges interacting. This can be modeled by the same type of Schrödinger equations used for hydrogen, only substituting the mass (or reduced mass) terms. You can also make an exotic hydrogen-like atom using a muon and proton (or muon and positron!).

It does not follow (IMO) that protons are antimatter.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #26 on: 26/01/2015 19:10:09 »
Positronium can be regarded as a "sort of light hydrogen" because it involves two subatomic particles of equal and opposite charges interacting. This can be modeled by the same type of Schrödinger equations used for hydrogen, only substituting the mass (or reduced mass) terms. You can also make an exotic hydrogen-like atom using a muon and proton (or muon and positron!).

It does not follow (IMO) that protons are antimatter.
I also concur.......................
 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #27 on: 26/01/2015 19:39:48 »
No. Matter.

I may be missing the point, but you seem to be changing definitions without proposing a change in how particles actually interact, but then concluding there is a grave error in physics for what is essentially a symantic difference.

The broad categories of matter and anti-matter are useful for brevity of expression, but the only thing that really matters (pardon me) is the interaction between a particle and its specific anti-particle. An electron will never annihilate with a proton. Nor will it annihilate with an anti-proton. It will only annihilate with a positron. Similarly a proton will only annihilate with an anti-proton.

Physicists have traditionally called both electrons and protons (and neutrons, although you don't bring them up)matter. This is a simple expediency, since these are the particles that make up the world around us. We've called this stuff "matter" long before anti-matter was conceived of by the human mind. Anti-matter is the catch-all term for the antiparticles of the ones we call matter.

Unless you are proposing new mechanisms for how the particles actually interact, however, swapping the matter and anti-matter labels on protons and anti-protons is simply that: swapping labels. It has the disadvantage of being linguistically confusing, but it does not in itself have any physical content.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #28 on: 26/01/2015 20:19:03 »
I may be missing the point, but you seem to be changing definitions without proposing a change in how particles actually interact, but then concluding there is a grave error in physics for what is essentially a symantic difference.
I'm not changing definitions so much as pointing out an ambiguity in the definitions. We say hydrogen is matter by convention, that's all. Then we say the electron is matter and the positron is antimatter, and that positronium is both, but it's like light hydrogen. Problem. The solution is to say hydrogen is both. Think mixed-doubles in tennis. Hydrogen is both, antihydrogen is both. Each consists of a particle and an antiparticle.   

The broad categories of matter and anti-matter are useful for brevity of expression, but the only thing that really matters (pardon me) is the interaction between a particle and its specific anti-particle. An electron will never annihilate with a proton. Nor will it annihilate with an anti-proton. It will only annihilate with a positron. Similarly a proton will only annihilate with an anti-proton.
Nothing wrong with that. But the electron and the proton move towards one another. It's like they "want" to annihilate, but they don't "fit".

Physicists have traditionally called both electrons and protons (and neutrons, although you don't bring them up) matter. This is a simple expediency, since these are the particles that make up the world around us. We've called this stuff "matter" long before anti-matter was conceived of by the human mind. Anti-matter is the catch-all term for the antiparticles of the ones we call matter.
Yes, it stems from mere convention. Only we never stop hearing about the mystery of the missing antimatter, but nobody gets concerned about the mystery of the missing L-glucose.

Unless you are proposing new mechanisms for how the particles actually interact
No, not at all.

however, swapping the matter and anti-matter labels on protons and anti-protons is simply that: swapping labels. It has the disadvantage of being linguistically confusing, but it does not in itself have any physical content.
It isn't linguistically confusing. What's confusing is that ambiguity that arose from mere convention. Get rid of that, and the mystery goes away.
 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #29 on: 26/01/2015 20:24:26 »
No, the mystery does not go away. The "mystery of the missing antimatter" is shorthand for the individual mysteries of the missing positrons, the missing antiprotons, etc. Relabeling antiprotons as "antimatter" does not make it less mysterious that we've got a lot of protons and a lot of electrons and apparently negligible amounts of positrons and antiprotons.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #30 on: 26/01/2015 20:30:42 »
You've missed the mixed doubles nuance. No matter how evenly matched they are, one side wins the game. Until one side wins, our universe can't sustain planets or stars or galaxies or life or anything. Then whichever side won, we call it matter.     
 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #31 on: 26/01/2015 20:44:27 »
No. If they are exactly evenly matched, then it is a tie.

Are you saying

(1) It is a tie, but we just happen to have electrons and protons in this part of the universe but they are all balanced by positrons and antiprotons somewhere else? This raises the problem of why we never see evidence of clumps made of electrons and protons (like what we live in) running into clumps made of positrons and antiprotons.

(2) It is not a tie. There actually were more electrons than positrons and protons than antiprotons. This raises the problem of how this happens when the physical laws governing them seem to be symmetrical.

or

(3) Something else. (If so, please explain, because I sincerely can't think of a third option between "it is a tie" and "it isn't a tie.")
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #32 on: 26/01/2015 20:58:10 »
You've missed the mixed doubles nuance. No matter how evenly matched they are, one side wins the game. Until one side wins, our universe can't sustain planets or stars or galaxies or life or anything. Then whichever side won, we call it matter.     

I think we are all missing the mixed doubles analogy... Unless you can propose a way to form an electron and a proton without creating an antielectron and an antiproton, I don't see what it has to do with anything.

...Hydrogen is both, antihydrogen is both. Each consists of a particle and an antiparticle...   

...But the electron and the proton move towards one another. It's like they "want" to annihilate, but they don't "fit".

Each is composed of a positively charged particle and a negatively charged particle. This has little to do with the matter/antimatter issue


nobody gets concerned about the mystery of the missing L-glucose.


Well, since there is a clear biological mechanism that produces only the one form of glucose without necessitating the other enantiomer to be created, there is no mystery. There is, however, much debate as to how (chemical) symmetry was broken in prebiotic history--why only one enantiomer of ribose? or only the one enantiomer of each of the amino acids? Some have gone so far as to claim that circularly polarized UV light from a rapidly spinning star selectively decomposed one enantiomer over the other (tipping the balance, then autocatalysis amplified the difference).
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #33 on: 26/01/2015 21:15:47 »
No. If they are exactly evenly matched, then it is a tie.
No it isn't, because there's a tie breaker.

Are you saying

(1) It is a tie, but we just happen to have electrons and protons in this part of the universe but they are all balanced by positrons and antiprotons somewhere else?
No. We have electrons and positrons in the universe. The baryon asymmetry is balanced by the lepton asymmetry. 

This raises the problem of why we never see evidence of clumps made of electrons and protons (like what we live in) running into clumps made of positrons and antiprotons.
If there were clumps of say, antihydrogen, we'd see it getting annihilated. The sky would be ablaze with hard gamma radiation.

(2) It is not a tie. There actually were more electrons than positrons and protons than antiprotons. This raises the problem of how this happens when the physical laws governing them seem to be symmetrical.
It isn't a tie because whilst the same number of electrons and positrons get produced, more positrons got destroyed by chance "melting" in the central quark-gluon plasma*. Then the slight excess of electrons led to a "stability tip". It's a bit like games where you get a slight advantage then magnify it and win the game. I don't know if you've ever played Go, but imagine that if I capture your black counters they get turned into black counters and white counters. Then I capture your black counters, and we repeat ad infinitum. It's ditto for the protons and the antiprotons, plus there's a relationship between electron and protons and positrons and antiprotons. 

(3) Something else. (If so, please explain, because I sincerely can't think of a third option between "it is a tie" and "it isn't a tie.")
It isn't a tie.

* see this: http://www.livescience.com/14748-quark-gluon-plasma-particle-soup-rhic.html
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #34 on: 26/01/2015 21:26:14 »


(2) It is not a tie. There actually were more electrons than positrons and protons than antiprotons.
This agrees with the information I have found.

For every 10 billion positrons, there were 10 billion and one electrons. After annihilation takes place, one electron remains. Same story for the antiprotons and protons.

Result; One particle of matter remains in each case while 20 billion annihilate. This is where all the antimatter has gone along with an equal amount of regular matter. Leaving approx. just .00000000005% let over along with the photon radiation we observe presently.
« Last Edit: 26/01/2015 21:30:22 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #35 on: 26/01/2015 21:29:11 »
I think we are all missing the mixed doubles analogy... Unless you can propose a way to form an electron and a proton without creating an antielectron and an antiproton, I don't see what it has to do with anything.
I can't. But there is a way to destroy the antielectron and the antiproton. You melt 'em. 

Each is composed of a positively charged particle and a negatively charged particle. This has little to do with the matter/antimatter issue
It has everything to do with it. What's the difference between a particle and its antiparticle? It's mass. No. They have a different chirality. And if you know anything about TQFT and topological charge, you'll know that they have their opposite charge because they have the opposite chirality.

Well, since there is a clear biological mechanism that produces only the one form of glucose without necessitating the other enantiomer to be created, there is no mystery.
Yes there is. Why don't we see both right and left-handed glucose in nature? By the way you know that L-glucose is just one half of a lock-and-key arrangement? Positronium can be viewed as something similar. And so can hydrogen but there the key won't turn.   

There is, however, much debate as to how (chemical) symmetry was broken in prebiotic history--why only one enantiomer of ribose? or only the one enantiomer of each of the amino acids? Some have gone so far as to claim that circularly polarized UV light from a rapidly spinning star selectively decomposed one enantiomer over the other (tipping the balance, then autocatalysis amplified the difference).
Sounds reasonable. See what I said above about a "stability tip" where a slight advantage gets magnified. 
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #36 on: 26/01/2015 21:35:04 »
For every 10 billion positrons, there were 10 billion and one electrons...
It doesn't work. Electrons and positrons are produced by pair production. If you create 10 billion electrons, you create 10 billion electrons. Then when you annihilate 10 billion electrons with 10 billion electrons, you're left with none of the above. You have to have that "melting" in the quark gluon plasma or your universe is a fail.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #37 on: 26/01/2015 21:46:18 »
Ok... two questions:

1) Are you saying that antielectrons and antiprotons are more likely to melt than their respective anti-articles? Or is it that, somehow, by random chance a slight imbalance manifested?

2) I understand how autocatalysis works in chemistry. How does the imbalance of matter vs antimatter magnify itself? (this is a question of ignorance, not a challenge)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #38 on: 26/01/2015 21:50:45 »
For every 10 billion positrons, there were 10 billion and one electrons...
It doesn't work.
Fox news has recently reported that a team working at Cern's LHC has discovered a particle that decays unevenly into matter and antimatter. This would account for the imbalance and allow one case to dominate allowing for the mystery of the missing antimatter.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #39 on: 26/01/2015 22:03:52 »
For every 10 billion positrons, there were 10 billion and one electrons...
It doesn't work.
Fox news has recently reported that a team working at Cern's LHC has discovered a particle that decays unevenly into matter and antimatter. This would account for the imbalance and allow one case to dominate allowing for the mystery of the missing antimatter.

Do you have a link?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #40 on: 26/01/2015 22:46:38 »
If correct this is very intriguing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/10016339/Large-Hadron-Collider-results-hint-at-where-all-the-antimatter-has-gone.html
["As a consequence of a very tiny difference between antimatter and matter, it meant that the matter survived while the antimatter did not.

 “The universe is made up of a billionth of the matter created in the big bang – so we are the billionth that was left over after the antimatter destroyed the rest.”

 Previous experiments around the world have shown signs of the CP Violation in three types of particles known as mesons.

 This latest finding from CERN, which is published in the journal Physical Review Letters, shows the CP Violation in a fourth type of meson, made of smaller particles known as Beauty quarks and Strange quarks.

 LHCb allowed the scientists at CERN to track how these mesons decayed as they were flung out from the explosions created by the particle collisions.

 They found that around one in four of the antimatter versions of these Bs mesons decayed more readily than their matter counterparts.]

This seems to indicate that it is a difference in the quark types. However if you read to the very bottom this is not the solution to the mystery but only part of a solution.
« Last Edit: 26/01/2015 22:48:22 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #41 on: 26/01/2015 22:47:22 »
For every 10 billion positrons, there were 10 billion and one electrons...
It doesn't work.
Fox news has recently reported that a team working at Cern's LHC has discovered a particle that decays unevenly into matter and antimatter. This would account for the imbalance and allow one case to dominate allowing for the mystery of the missing antimatter.

Do you have a link?
I just typed into Yahoo: "Where is all the missing antimatter?"
I believe it was the first article in the list. I resist copying and pasting articles because of copyright infringement worries.
 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #42 on: 27/01/2015 14:02:09 »
* see this: http://www.livescience.com/14748-quark-gluon-plasma-particle-soup-rhic.html

So I read the linked article. The quark-gluon plasma doesn't do what you want it to.

First off, it has nothing to do with electrons. Electrons are not composed of quarks. Indeed, most physicists believe that electrons aren't composed of anything smaller. (Every so often I hear about proposals of benefits of considering the electron a composite particle, but I'm not aware of any that have stuck.) So the electrons aren't going to melt. Even if the quark-gluon plasma provided an answer for the lack of anti-protons, it wouldn't provide one for the lack of positrons.

Second, the quark-gluon plasma just pushes the matter/antimatter problem back one step further, rather than getting rid of it. Quarks have anti-particles as well. Indeed, if they didn't, then the particles they made up wouldn't have them either. A proton is made up of two up quarks and a down quark. An anti-proton is made of two anti-ups and an anti-down. So the question in the early universe is "Why are there more quarks than anti-quarks?"

So we're back to a choice between what I described above as options (1) and (2). As others have been pointing out, the bulk of research has centered around option (2), that there was a real imbalance. There does seem to be some progress in that recently, as the material mentioned by Ethos_ and the article linked by jeffreyH show.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #43 on: 27/01/2015 15:41:52 »
* see this: http://www.livescience.com/14748-quark-gluon-plasma-particle-soup-rhic.html

So I read the linked article. The quark-gluon plasma doesn't do what you want it to.

First off, it has nothing to do with electrons. Electrons are not composed of quarks. Indeed, most physicists believe that electrons aren't composed of anything smaller. (Every so often I hear about proposals of benefits of considering the electron a composite particle, but I'm not aware of any that have stuck.) So the electrons aren't going to melt. Even if the quark-gluon plasma provided an answer for the lack of anti-protons, it wouldn't provide one for the lack of positrons.

Second, the quark-gluon plasma just pushes the matter/antimatter problem back one step further, rather than getting rid of it. Quarks have anti-particles as well. Indeed, if they didn't, then the particles they made up wouldn't have them either. A proton is made up of two up quarks and a down quark. An anti-proton is made of two anti-ups and an anti-down. So the question in the early universe is "Why are there more quarks than anti-quarks?"

So we're back to a choice between what I described above as options (1) and (2). As others have been pointing out, the bulk of research has centered around option (2), that there was a real imbalance. There does seem to be some progress in that recently, as the material mentioned by Ethos_ and the article linked by jeffreyH show.
Excellent analysis my friend............................

I think an even better understanding of this phenomenon will precipitate from the experiments being preformed at Cern. We stand to gather new information as the team there steps up the LHC to maximum power in the coming months. I'm excited to hear about the forth coming discoveries that will shortly come to light.
« Last Edit: 27/01/2015 15:43:47 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #44 on: 27/01/2015 21:33:56 »
Ok... two questions:

1) Are you saying that antielectrons and antiprotons are more likely to melt than their respective anti-articles? Or is it that, somehow, by random chance a slight imbalance manifested?
The latter. But I don't actually know this. Have a look at this article featuring Mark Hadley at Warwick talking about rotation causing a frame-dragging that then causes particles and antiparticles to behave slightly differently. 

2) I understand how autocatalysis works in chemistry. How does the imbalance of matter vs antimatter magnify itself? (this is a question of ignorance, not a challenge)
I don't actually know, but I envisage it needs something like a cooking-pot process. If I engineer a chance situation where there's more electrons & protons than positrons & antiprotons, the positrons and antiprotons all get destroyed. Our cooking pot consists of a hot lower zone, plus a warm zone, plus a cold-zone "skin" of hydrogen on top. Electrons and positrons and protons and antiprotons get created in the warm zone. If they stay there they can get destroyed via annihilation. If they go down into the hot zone they get destroyed by melting. If a lone antiproton comes up from warm zone it tends to interact with the electron on the outside of a hydrogen atom in the fairly massive skin, and tends to get repelled back towards the hot zone. If it meets up with a (lightweight) positron coming the other way it drags it into the hot zone and they both get melted. If a proton comes up from the warm zone it doesn't get repelled back down, and can hang around until it meets up with an electron. Then the skin gets thicker. If a positron comes up the skin takes a hit, but then an electron comes up and fixes the damage. Overall the skin gets thicker and thicker as the pot cools down, and in the end the pan is nicely full of "matter".   

Note though that electrons and positrons have the opposite chirality, as do protons and antiprotons. Maybe there's some similarity with autocatalysis. And the Mark Hadley might be like stirring the pot such that it's hydrogen to the top, and antihydrogen to the bottom. I don't know for sure, but whatever it is, it can't be magic.   
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #45 on: 27/01/2015 21:57:10 »
So I read the linked article. The quark-gluon plasma doesn't do what you want it to. First off, it has nothing to do with electrons. Electrons are not composed of quarks.
Nor is a quark-gluon plasma. A quark-gluon plasma isn't a mess of quarks and gluons buzzing around. Hadrons melt in it. They don't split up into quarks and gluons. And if a hadron melts, an electron will melt too. Note that gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual anyway, see this. Quarks are just partons. Parts.

Indeed, most physicists believe that electrons aren't composed of anything smaller. (Every so often I hear about proposals of benefits of considering the electron a composite particle, but I'm not aware of any that have stuck.) So the electrons aren't going to melt.
Yes they are. If a proton cannot maintain its integrity, nor can an electron. See this about heavy-ion collisions where everything “melts” into a quark-gluon plasma.

Even if the quark-gluon plasma provided an answer for the lack of anti-protons, it wouldn't provide one for the lack of positrons.
Not on its own. See the cooking-pot analogy above.

Second, the quark-gluon plasma just pushes the matter/antimatter problem back one step further, rather than getting rid of it. Quarks have anti-particles as well. Indeed, if they didn't, then the particles they made up wouldn't have them either. A proton is made up of two up quarks and a down quark. An anti-proton is made of two anti-ups and an anti-down. So the question in the early universe is "Why are there more quarks than anti-quarks?"
We've never seen a free quark. Best not to worry about them.

So we're back to a choice between what I described above as options (1) and (2). As others have been pointing out, the bulk of research has centered around option (2), that there was a real imbalance. There does seem to be some progress in that recently, as the material mentioned by Ethos_ and the article linked by jeffreyH show.
IMHO this is a bit of a red herring. The Bs meson is comprised of a bottom antiquark and a strange quark, so it isn’t really matter or antimatter, it’s both. And it oscillates into its own antiparticle and back in about 18 picoseconds, so again it’s both. And it lasts for a circa 1.5 x 10^-13 seconds. See what Professor Chris Parkes said: the difference between the matter and antimatter particles they had seen was still too small to fully explain the dominance of matter today.
 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #46 on: 27/01/2015 22:29:36 »
So I read the linked article. The quark-gluon plasma doesn't do what you want it to. First off, it has nothing to do with electrons. Electrons are not composed of quarks.
Nor is a quark-gluon plasma. A quark-gluon plasma isn't a mess of quarks and gluons buzzing around. Hadrons melt in it. They don't split up into quarks and gluons. And if a hadron melts, an electron will melt too. Note that gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual anyway, see this. Quarks are just partons. Parts.

Followed your first link. Within it was the following sentence which directly contradicts your assertion about what a quark-gluon plasma is.

"Beyond the normal phase of QCD (at extreme temperatures and pressures), quark gluon plasma forms. In such a plasma there are no hadrons; quarks and gluons become free particles." (emphasis added)
Quote
Quote
Indeed, most physicists believe that electrons aren't composed of anything smaller. (Every so often I hear about proposals of benefits of considering the electron a composite particle, but I'm not aware of any that have stuck.) So the electrons aren't going to melt.
Yes they are. If a proton cannot maintain its integrity, nor can an electron. See this about heavy-ion collisions where everything “melts” into a quark-gluon plasma.

Followed your second link. It makes no mention of electrons or positrons, so I don't see how it supports your assertion.

Protons are believed to be composite particles. Electrons are not believed to be composite particles. The dissolution of protons under high energy conditions does not carry any implications about what happens to electrons.

At this point, I'm bowing out. Your main point has basis neither in the physics I learned in graduate school nor in the references you claim support it. I'm at the limits of my ability to recast my explanations in new words that will be any clearer or more helpful than what I've said up to this point.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #47 on: 27/01/2015 22:43:33 »
From the link provided by JohnDuffield (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/heavy-ions-and-quark-gluon-plasma)

"...such as gold or lead nuclei. In these heavy-ion collisions the hundreds of protons and neutrons in two such nuclei smash into one another at energies of upwards of a few trillion electronvolts each. This forms a miniscule fireball in which everything “melts” into a quark-gluon plasma.

The fireball instantly cools, and the individual quarks and gluons (collectively called partons) recombine into a blizzard of ordinary matter that speeds away in all directions. The debris contains particles such as pions and kaons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark; protons and neutrons, made of three quarks; and even copious antiprotons and antineutrons, which may combine to form the nuclei of antiatoms as heavy as helium..."


I still don't think this applies to electrons. They say "everything melts", but "everything" is still just nuclei, no electrons involved. Are there studies where they use only partially ionized nuclei?

It would appear that this soup does allow for the conversion of quarks into antiquarks, as normal matter is melted, and then as it cools there is a distribution of combinations of quarks and antiquarks. The article alludes to study of this distribution. What is known about the distribution?


 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #48 on: 27/01/2015 23:46:39 »

At this point, I'm bowing out. Your main point has basis neither in the physics I learned in graduate school nor in the references you claim support it. I'm at the limits of my ability to recast my explanations in new words that will be any clearer or more helpful than what I've said up to this point.
I agree. I think if John has a new theory outside of the mainstream, he should post it in the New Theories Section. This Section of the forum is dedicated to main stream physics.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #49 on: 28/01/2015 00:16:51 »
We've never seen a free quark. Best not to worry about them.

Why?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: matter/anti matter
« Reply #49 on: 28/01/2015 00:16:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums