The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
hello. Please only try and rely to this if u got a good idea about physics. I'm not tyrin to be rude but it is HARD
I've been reading a few books on 'the big bang', and they all say one thing. There was nothing, but then there was somrthing. Matter and anti matter are given for this, saying that particles pop in and out of existence. They appear in two parts, and when they combine again the matter disappears. However, the books say there is a little too much matter to the anti matter (0.01 per cent extra), so when all the molecules recombined, matter was left over, and that is what started the big bang.
My questions are this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence? thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
2) why is there more matter than anti matter?
I'm no Edwin Hubble, so please explain this in as simple a term (or terms) as you can. Thank you.
I've been reading a few books on 'the big bang', and they all say one thing. There was nothing, but then there was somrthing. Matter and anti matter are given for this, saying that particles pop in and out of existence. They appear in two parts, and when they combine again the matter disappears. However, the books say there is a little too much matter to the anti matter (0.01 per cent extra), so when all the molecules recombined, matter was left over, and that is what started the big bang.
My questions are this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence? thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
2) why is there more matter than anti matter?
I'm no Edwin Hubble, so please explain this in as simple a term (or terms) as you can. Thank you.
Page:
Edwin25 wrote:
My questions are
this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence?
thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
2) why is there more
matter than anti matter?
Well like you said that is impossable by the basic laws of physics, but the complecated well......thats a different matter. There is no simply complete answer yet but there are theories on this matter. Maybe this will help (doubt it)
At first, resolving this question seems impossible. How can we possibly understand the mechanism that selected the existence of matter over antimatter during the earliest stages of evolution of the universe? In 1968, Andrei Sakharov, best known as the father of the Soviet bomb, proposed a recipe to generate more matter than antimatter in an expanding universe.
He suggested that three conditions must be satisfied in order to produce the matter excess. First, there must be a way of creating both more matter and antimatter particles of the kinds which are important to usóthat is, the kinds that make up the atoms we are made of. Then, there must be a mechanism to bias the creation of more matter than antimatter. And finally, once we have an excess of matter particles over their antimatter partners, we must make sure that this excess is not erased as the universe continues to expand.
The first of these conditions is the creation of both baryons and anti-baryons from collisions involving the other particles present in the primordial soup. Baryons are particles which interact via the strong nuclear force, the force responsible for holding the nucleus together. Protons and neutrons (a.k.a. nucleons), and their constituent parts called quarks, are all baryons. At low energies, the number of baryons participating in collisions between different particles is conserved: that is, just like electric charge, the total number of baryons before an interaction equals the total after. If we are interested in making baryons, as we must in order to create matter in the universe, this conservation law is not very useful. According to Sakharovís requirement, however, at very high energies the interactions between elementary particles should not conserve the number of baryons. That is, at high energies both baryons and anti-baryons can be created from ìotherî particles. These high energies are naturally realized in the hot furnace of the early universe.
But this first condition does not differentiate between baryons and anti-baryons. At high temperatures we could still create the same number of each, and that wouldnít cause a bias toward matter over antimatter. We need a second condition. Once the high energies of the early universe allow for the creation of baryons and anti-baryons, we need a condition that selects, or biases, the creation of baryons over anti-baryons, an arrow pointing in the correct direction (i.e., toward matter).
In 1964, J.H. Christenson and his collaborators found experimental evidence that interactions between certain baryons do indeed exhibit this bias.
It is as if Nature has its own biases, in this case toward more baryons. If this is true in laboratory experiments, no doubt this will also be true in the early universe. Making excess matter over antimatter is not as hard as it initially seemed to be. But this is still not the whole story. One more challenge remains, which has to do with the physics of hot systems, also known as thermodynamics.
One of the properties of very hot systems is that they have no memory of their past. Imagine a coffee spoon which is initially cold. Now immerse one of its ends into a very hot cup of coffee. What happens? Although initially only the end in the coffee will be hot, very quickly the whole spoon will be equally hot. You wonít be able to tell which of the two ends was immersed into the coffee cup; the system (coffee spoon and hot coffee) lost its ìmemory.î Another term for this loss of memory is thermal equilibrium. If the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, any excess baryons would have been deleted; in equilibrium, the net baryon number is zero. In order to maintain the baryon bias as the universe cools, we need to make sure the universe doesnít ìlose its memoryî and delete the new baryons. Therefore, we need a third condition.
We need what are called ìout of equilibriumî conditions. In order to ìfreezeî the net number of baryons produced by the first two conditions, the early universe could not have been always in thermal equilibrium. We are very familiar with systems that are out of thermal equilibrium in our everyday life. An example is condensation of steam. More specifically, imagine a container filled with hot steam which is immersed into a large bucket with cold water. The steam, being too hot compared with the cold water, is out of thermal equilibrium. In order to attain equilibrium it will go through a phase transition; the steam will cool down and condense, going from a gas phase to a liquid phase. As it does so, we will observe the appearance of droplets of the liquid phase that will grow and coalesce. The phase transition ends when the steam is completely converted into water.
How does this reasoning apply to the early universe? Strange as this may sound, the universe also went through phase transitions. Particlesóand their propertiesóare also sensitive to temperature. The standard model of particle physics successfully describes how particles interact at energies over a thousand times larger than nuclear energies. According to this model, at very high temperatures all particles but one, the so-called Higgs particle, have no mass, while at lower temperatures they acquire a mass through their interactions with the Higgs particle. We say that matter has two different ìphases,î above and below the temperature at which particles like the quarks and the electron acquire a mass.
Thus, as the temperature of the early universe dropped, it went through a phase transition, and particles gained their mass. Like water droplets in steam, droplets of the low temperature (massive) phase appeared within the high temperature (massless) phase, growing and coalescing, in a typical out-of-equilibrium phase transition. Since only in the high temperature phase are baryons created in excess over anti-baryons (recall that the first two conditions apply only at high temperatures), these excess baryonic particles will penetrate the droplets of the massive phase, like viruses invading cells, becoming the net baryon number in the low temperature phase. As the droplets grow and coalesce, the whole universe is converted into the massive phase, completing the phase transition. According to our current models of ìbaryogenesis,î the creation of the excess baryons occurred when the universe was about one thousandth of a billionth of a second old. The protons and neutrons we are made of are the fossils of this primordial event.
So is this it? Far from it. The simplest particle physics models we have do not generate the observed excess of matter over antimatter. Even worse, our true understanding of the complicated dynamics of these phase transitions is at best incomplete, leaving many questions unanswered at the moment. We have the broad outline of an explanation for the generation of matter in the universe, but the details are far from being understood.
My questions are
this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence?
thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
2) why is there more
matter than anti matter?
Well like you said that is impossable by the basic laws of physics, but the complecated well......thats a different matter. There is no simply complete answer yet but there are theories on this matter. Maybe this will help (doubt it)
At first, resolving this question seems impossible. How can we possibly understand the mechanism that selected the existence of matter over antimatter during the earliest stages of evolution of the universe? In 1968, Andrei Sakharov, best known as the father of the Soviet bomb, proposed a recipe to generate more matter than antimatter in an expanding universe.
He suggested that three conditions must be satisfied in order to produce the matter excess. First, there must be a way of creating both more matter and antimatter particles of the kinds which are important to usóthat is, the kinds that make up the atoms we are made of. Then, there must be a mechanism to bias the creation of more matter than antimatter. And finally, once we have an excess of matter particles over their antimatter partners, we must make sure that this excess is not erased as the universe continues to expand.
The first of these conditions is the creation of both baryons and anti-baryons from collisions involving the other particles present in the primordial soup. Baryons are particles which interact via the strong nuclear force, the force responsible for holding the nucleus together. Protons and neutrons (a.k.a. nucleons), and their constituent parts called quarks, are all baryons. At low energies, the number of baryons participating in collisions between different particles is conserved: that is, just like electric charge, the total number of baryons before an interaction equals the total after. If we are interested in making baryons, as we must in order to create matter in the universe, this conservation law is not very useful. According to Sakharovís requirement, however, at very high energies the interactions between elementary particles should not conserve the number of baryons. That is, at high energies both baryons and anti-baryons can be created from ìotherî particles. These high energies are naturally realized in the hot furnace of the early universe.
But this first condition does not differentiate between baryons and anti-baryons. At high temperatures we could still create the same number of each, and that wouldnít cause a bias toward matter over antimatter. We need a second condition. Once the high energies of the early universe allow for the creation of baryons and anti-baryons, we need a condition that selects, or biases, the creation of baryons over anti-baryons, an arrow pointing in the correct direction (i.e., toward matter).
In 1964, J.H. Christenson and his collaborators found experimental evidence that interactions between certain baryons do indeed exhibit this bias.
It is as if Nature has its own biases, in this case toward more baryons. If this is true in laboratory experiments, no doubt this will also be true in the early universe. Making excess matter over antimatter is not as hard as it initially seemed to be. But this is still not the whole story. One more challenge remains, which has to do with the physics of hot systems, also known as thermodynamics.
One of the properties of very hot systems is that they have no memory of their past. Imagine a coffee spoon which is initially cold. Now immerse one of its ends into a very hot cup of coffee. What happens? Although initially only the end in the coffee will be hot, very quickly the whole spoon will be equally hot. You wonít be able to tell which of the two ends was immersed into the coffee cup; the system (coffee spoon and hot coffee) lost its ìmemory.î Another term for this loss of memory is thermal equilibrium. If the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, any excess baryons would have been deleted; in equilibrium, the net baryon number is zero. In order to maintain the baryon bias as the universe cools, we need to make sure the universe doesnít ìlose its memoryî and delete the new baryons. Therefore, we need a third condition.
We need what are called ìout of equilibriumî conditions. In order to ìfreezeî the net number of baryons produced by the first two conditions, the early universe could not have been always in thermal equilibrium. We are very familiar with systems that are out of thermal equilibrium in our everyday life. An example is condensation of steam. More specifically, imagine a container filled with hot steam which is immersed into a large bucket with cold water. The steam, being too hot compared with the cold water, is out of thermal equilibrium. In order to attain equilibrium it will go through a phase transition; the steam will cool down and condense, going from a gas phase to a liquid phase. As it does so, we will observe the appearance of droplets of the liquid phase that will grow and coalesce. The phase transition ends when the steam is completely converted into water.
How does this reasoning apply to the early universe? Strange as this may sound, the universe also went through phase transitions. Particlesóand their propertiesóare also sensitive to temperature. The standard model of particle physics successfully describes how particles interact at energies over a thousand times larger than nuclear energies. According to this model, at very high temperatures all particles but one, the so-called Higgs particle, have no mass, while at lower temperatures they acquire a mass through their interactions with the Higgs particle. We say that matter has two different ìphases,î above and below the temperature at which particles like the quarks and the electron acquire a mass.
Thus, as the temperature of the early universe dropped, it went through a phase transition, and particles gained their mass. Like water droplets in steam, droplets of the low temperature (massive) phase appeared within the high temperature (massless) phase, growing and coalescing, in a typical out-of-equilibrium phase transition. Since only in the high temperature phase are baryons created in excess over anti-baryons (recall that the first two conditions apply only at high temperatures), these excess baryonic particles will penetrate the droplets of the massive phase, like viruses invading cells, becoming the net baryon number in the low temperature phase. As the droplets grow and coalesce, the whole universe is converted into the massive phase, completing the phase transition. According to our current models of ìbaryogenesis,î the creation of the excess baryons occurred when the universe was about one thousandth of a billionth of a second old. The protons and neutrons we are made of are the fossils of this primordial event.
So is this it? Far from it. The simplest particle physics models we have do not generate the observed excess of matter over antimatter. Even worse, our true understanding of the complicated dynamics of these phase transitions is at best incomplete, leaving many questions unanswered at the moment. We have the broad outline of an explanation for the generation of matter in the universe, but the details are far from being understood.
Bob wrote:
> > How did the loop in time start?
Thats why its a paradox, hope I didn't
> corrupt your mind and remember if you want to have fun in physics (it can be
> done) then just start argueing with the teacher about strange theorys. Belive it
> or not physics teachers are the people who did badly in there degree courses. If
> they had done well then they would actually be working in the field and earning
> lots of dough.
cool, i hooked a staff member! yay! ahem.
Personally i dont belive in time paradoxes. All of physics is thinking of explanations, but a paradox cannot be explained. I think that time can only ever flow in one direction, so this cant happen.
You my be right, but i just dont like the 'deal with it or shut up' school of thought. Anyway all of physics is what YOU think and how you explain things anyway.
I totally agree with your take the micky outts the teacher idea however. :-)
> > How did the loop in time start?
Thats why its a paradox, hope I didn't
> corrupt your mind and remember if you want to have fun in physics (it can be
> done) then just start argueing with the teacher about strange theorys. Belive it
> or not physics teachers are the people who did badly in there degree courses. If
> they had done well then they would actually be working in the field and earning
> lots of dough.
cool, i hooked a staff member! yay! ahem.
Personally i dont belive in time paradoxes. All of physics is thinking of explanations, but a paradox cannot be explained. I think that time can only ever flow in one direction, so this cant happen.
You my be right, but i just dont like the 'deal with it or shut up' school of thought. Anyway all of physics is what YOU think and how you explain things anyway.
I totally agree with your take the micky outts the teacher idea however. :-)
> How did the loop in time start?
Thats why its a paradox, hope I didn't corrupt your mind and remember if you want to have fun in physics (it can be done) then just start argueing with the teacher about strange theorys. Belive it or not physics teachers are the people who did badly in there degree courses. If they had done well then they would actually be working in the field and earning lots of dough.
Thats why its a paradox, hope I didn't corrupt your mind and remember if you want to have fun in physics (it can be done) then just start argueing with the teacher about strange theorys. Belive it or not physics teachers are the people who did badly in there degree courses. If they had done well then they would actually be working in the field and earning lots of dough.
well thanks for all the help.
Does anyone know where i can buy a copy of the book 'the emporers new mind' it sounds extremely useful.
All your suggestions of a loop in time (ie matter at the end and beggining of the universe)
parralel universes full of anti matter and so on are all valid theroies bouncing around the scientific world, but those theories still have flaws
How did the loop in time start?
How can any matter travel from universe to the other?
Im sure youve got answers, id just like to know em.
again thanks for all the help and hard work!
Does anyone know where i can buy a copy of the book 'the emporers new mind' it sounds extremely useful.
All your suggestions of a loop in time (ie matter at the end and beggining of the universe)
parralel universes full of anti matter and so on are all valid theroies bouncing around the scientific world, but those theories still have flaws
How did the loop in time start?
How can any matter travel from universe to the other?
Im sure youve got answers, id just like to know em.
again thanks for all the help and hard work!
I did quite well at physics but kept anoying my teachers with strange theorys. My theory on the big bang is this:
At the end of time all the matter in the univers will colapse in on itself and so create an enormous ammount of energy, enough energy to remove a few particles from the normal spcae time continum and send them back to the start of time where they will colide and start expanding into the unverse. The ultimate paradox.
At the end of time all the matter in the univers will colapse in on itself and so create an enormous ammount of energy, enough energy to remove a few particles from the normal spcae time continum and send them back to the start of time where they will colide and start expanding into the unverse. The ultimate paradox.
Edwin25,
I would suggest you read a book called 'The Emperors New Mind', by Roger Penrose. This covers almost all of the questions that you've been asking recently. It gets quite technical in parts, but it's written so you don't have to do the Maths to understand the points being raised.
Considering your last couple of threads, I wouldn't be that shocked if it was one of the books you were reading. If not, I'd recommend it as one to take a look at.
I would suggest you read a book called 'The Emperors New Mind', by Roger Penrose. This covers almost all of the questions that you've been asking recently. It gets quite technical in parts, but it's written so you don't have to do the Maths to understand the points being raised.
Considering your last couple of threads, I wouldn't be that shocked if it was one of the books you were reading. If not, I'd recommend it as one to take a look at.
Venom, I hope this doesn;t turn into another one of those "Humans v Robots" threads.
Edwin25 wrote:
My questions are
> this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence?
> thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
E=mc^2
Enery = Mass * speed of light squared (which is a constant)
Therefore, energy is directly equivalent to mass. Thus the mass (matter and antimatter) can be created just from energy which happens to be around at the time. When they meet, both particles will cease to exist, and leave their energy transferred to some other form.
2) why is there more
> matter than anti matter?
Nobody is quite sure. One theory is that there is another 'parallel' universe consisting mostly of antimatter, another is that we lack the technology to detect all the antimatter in this universe.
My questions are
> this:
1) How the hell can matter in any form pop in and out of existence?
> thats impossible by the very basic laws of physics.
E=mc^2
Enery = Mass * speed of light squared (which is a constant)
Therefore, energy is directly equivalent to mass. Thus the mass (matter and antimatter) can be created just from energy which happens to be around at the time. When they meet, both particles will cease to exist, and leave their energy transferred to some other form.
2) why is there more
> matter than anti matter?
Nobody is quite sure. One theory is that there is another 'parallel' universe consisting mostly of antimatter, another is that we lack the technology to detect all the antimatter in this universe.
Well I'm pretty good at Physics but I have no idea how the hell that happens.
A-Level Physics is (apparently) really strange with things like standing someone against the wall and saying if you were to blink at that person for the age of the universe then he would appear on the other side of the wall. Something to do with electrons from your eyes.
A-Level Physics is (apparently) really strange with things like standing someone against the wall and saying if you were to blink at that person for the age of the universe then he would appear on the other side of the wall. Something to do with electrons from your eyes.
Page: