[nilak (OP)]

What does quantum mechanics have to say about this aspect?
Matter usually differs by antimatter having opposite charge.
It is said that the Universe in the early stages should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

The total charge is conserved no matter the interactions and if we go back in time indefinitely the universe has always been neutral. If in the early stages the universe was all EM radiation, the total charge had to be zero. This is also means a charge symmetry which feels a more natural course. But the can reason we don't have matter-antimatter symmetry have do with the randomness of nature. A classical universe would have evolves perfectly symmetrical. The whole Universe would've been a perfect sphere growing ( it doesn't matter how you model it, it remains classical). But in quantum terms, if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?

For example we flip a coin for like

Code: [Select]

10^{20} times. We will get a ~50/50 ratio. However, in absolute values we can have something like

Code: [Select]

5.000001•10^{19} tails and

Code: [Select]

4.999999•10^{19} heads. But

Code: [Select]

0.000001 • 10^{19} is very large and would be equivalent to the matter left in the Universe.

[Bogie_smiles]

What does quantum mechanics have to say about this aspect?
Matter usually differs by antimatter having opposite charge.

I’m not an authority on this, so here is a wiki that confirms the part of what you say about opposite charges, and goes on into more detail about annihilations of matter and antimatter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

It is said that the Universe in the early stages should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.


The total charge is conserved no matter the interactions and if we go back in time indefinitely the universe has always been neutral. If in the early stages the universe was all EM radiation, the total charge had to be zero. This is also means a charge symmetry which feels a more natural course. But [can] the can reason we don't have matter-antimatter symmetry have do with the randomness of nature[?]. A classical universe would have evolves perfectly symmetrical. The whole Universe would've been a perfect sphere growing ( it doesn't matter how you model it, it remains classical). But in quantum terms, if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?


For example we flip a coin for like

Code: [Select]

10^{20} times. We will get a ~50/50 ratio. However, in absolute values we can have something like

Code: [Select]

5.000001•10^{19} tails and

Code: [Select]

4.999999•10^{19} heads. But

Code: [Select]

0.000001 • 10^{19} is very large and would be equivalent to the matter left in the Universe.[/font]

Needless to say, the question of “where is all the antimatter” is a major unsolved problem of physics, and your proposal might be aimed at addressing that problem. If so, a simple response to the question you pose …

… if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?

…is yes we can apply that principle, if you are invoking an interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows for some randomness in the matter/antimatter split at the moment of symmetry breaking. That randomness then might very wall net out to 50/50 over the long run of many trials. Cautiously though, it seems presumptuous to say that if there was only one symmetry breaking event at the beginning of our universe, that it is only by chance that the split came out like it did. There is no support for the laws of quantum mechanics being in play at the moment of the initial event.