/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4673281]

explain matter/antimatter asymmetry

[Anonymous No.4673310]

matter appears much more common in our universe than anti-matter, why?

[Anonymous No.4673317]

>>4673310
cuz jesus and da bibel made it so
bow down to da POWER of CHRIST

[Anonymous No.4673334]

>>4673310
Well, to be fair, we called the one that appeared to be more common "matter." It wasn't like "we'll call these matter, and those anti-matter... hey, what do you know! There's more matter!"

[Anonymous No.4673349]

>>4673310
because anti-matter is a bullshit theory

[Anonymous No.4674128]

bump for real answers

[Anonymous No.4674136]

>>4673334
But our experiments seem to indicate that matter is as likely to be generated as antimatter. why the is there almost totally just matter around?

[Anonymous No.4674182]

>/sci/ too busy discussing the diameters of different races' buttholes

[Anonymous No.4674192]

We may simply be in a section of the universe, or multiverse, what have you, that is temporarily higher in it's concentration of matter.

or rather, possibly spontaneous energy matter conversion cascaded out of control, creating a feedback loop and resulting in the matter you see today.

who knows

[Anonymous No.4674196]

>>4674192
there would be some border, an interface between the predominantly matter and predominantly antimatter sections. at this border there w9ould be powerful gamma ray emissions. Yet we have detected no such border

[Anonymous No.4674200]

>>4674196
we haven't detected shit

imagine you're standing in a gymnasium with your eyes closed and yours arms extended

that's our universe

the gymnasium is what we can't see

and outside is what we can't imagine

[Anonymous No.4674201]

the truth is that humans don't know as much as they claim to

it's important to ask these questions, sure

but right now there's no way to answer them

patience is key

[Anonymous No.4674202]

>>4674200
by definition there is nothing outside the gymnasium

[Anonymous No.4674207]

>>4674202

lack of knowledge doesn't imply lack of substance

don't be so egotistical, humans are stupid tiny and primitive
we dont know anything

[Anonymous No.4674216]

>>4674207
>stupid tiny and primitive
you are describing your penis, not humans

[Anonymous No.4674220]

>>4674201
I thought /sci/ wanted to tackle srs questions

[Anonymous No.4674222]

>>4674216

the universe is estimated at 12 billion years old

we can see that this section of the universe is 12 billion years old

we theorize that there has been "something" operating and creating universe/es for however longer.
or not.

planet formation begins within the first 15million years
earth is 4 billion years old

humans are 50,000 years old


we are quite young, infants really.
and very stupid.
and extremely, extremely primitive.

and yes, my penis is a bit on the short end actually.
thick though, nice and thick.

[Anonymous No.4674231]

>and yes, my penis is a bit on the short end actually

[Anonymous No.4674229]

>>4674222
>humans are 50,000 years old

[Anonymous No.4674237]

>>4674229
a drastic error

500,000 is more accurate

or rather
closer to our beginnings

[OrganicEuphoria !C5Eg6mdVac No.4674264]

I'm not too sure as to why antimatter is now seemingly accepted to be true, at least publicly. There's been very little meaningful evidence gathered to attest this dark matter.

The good people over at CERN / LHC have been working at this shit for years now. Basically, the energy expelled via the collision of two ordinary particles is registered and recorded by their compact muon solenoid detector; any dark matter created would lead to an observable decrease (albeit tiny) in the expected energy released during any specific collision.

Those motherfuckers have tried just about everything they could possibly think of. Seriously, they've gone as far as gathering the total number of photons their CMS dectecor records, extrapolating that to the absolute number of events involving the degradation of a photon into a neutrino/antineutrino and trying to figure if that fully explains the total loss of energy. If it doesn't, boom, dark matter (presumably).

Dark matter is some mysterious shit that astronomers proclaim is out there somewhere, but physicist/mathematicians can not seem to identify.

[Anonymous No.4674273]

>>4674264
anti matter and dark matter are not the same things.

anti matter is documented, observable, and createable.
it is simply the same as matter, with an opposite "spin"

dark matter is theorized, unobservable, and frankly not well understood anyway, we just think it makes up for the "lost mass" of galaxies

which can be well explained by rogue planets anyway.
which is the new theory thats kind of taking over.

anti matter though
thats energy

[Anonymous No.4674295]

>>4674237
>500,000 is more accurate

Anatomically modern humans appeared around 200,000 years ago. So 50,000 years was closer to the mark than 500,000 was.

[Anonymous No.4674320]

>>4674264
I heard a decrease in energy would attribute to the mystical graviton being released into a higher dimension ala string theory. At least that's what the history channel told me...

[Anonymous No.4674324]

>>4674264
>thinks dark matter and antimatter are the same thing

Why do people comment on topics they don't know anything about?

[Anonymous No.4674327]

><span class="math">okay[/spoiler]

[OrganicEuphoria !C5Eg6mdVac No.4674335]

>>4674273
Hold up there.

>anti matter is documented, observable, and createable.
it is simply the same as matter, with an opposite "spin"

That is not correct.
Antiparticles (to which I think you're referring too) lie in the exact same irreducible representation of the Poincaré group; particles and antiparticles must have the same mass, and the same spin state, although their inherent electric charges are opposite. This is, fundamentally, what perturbation theory, and the systematic derivation of particle formalism (Feynamn diagrams) is built around. The collision of an electron and antielectron, releases the equivalent of their rest masses in the form of pure energy (see Einsteins famous equation...)

Both antimatter and matter are considered baryonic matter, dark matter, however is not. This is what one would be looking for through the observable decrease in record energies upon collision..

[Anonymous No.4674339]

IQ Fundie was responsible for the production of antimatter, he fundied the whole thing and we're now left with the consequences.

[Anonymous No.4674913]

>>4674264
you are conflating antimatter and dark matter

[Anonymous No.4674919]

>>4674324
>thinks koreans and japs are the same

[Anonymous No.4674923]

>>4674327
>isnt aware of CP violations
wiki it

inb4 retards think this has to do with pedos

[Anonymous No.4674924]

>>4674339
Is he still around? I liked arguing with him about qualia.

[Anonymous No.4675002]

>>4674924
Yes, he's still around somewhere, just saw him this morning(by my reckoning, nine hours ago).

[Anonymous No.4677107]

?

[Anonymous No.4677225]

matter (and not anti-matter) dominates our universe, why?

[Anonymous No.4677227]

>>4677225
No one really knows. Big open problem in physics. There are some ideas though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

[Anonymous No.4677244]

>Mfw when Feynman's path integral antimatter theory reduces the antimatter/matter assymetry question to the origin of time assymetry.

[Anonymous No.4677250]

>>4677244

asymmetry*

[Anonymous No.4677269]

I think that once we get past some erroneous ideas about quantum gravity and really get a good handle on it, it will remove the need for "dark energy" altogether.
And some of the models might be a bit sketchy in spots because of how quantum gravity will be found to work and because of some scalar bias that creeps in to people's ideas of proper gravity modeling.
But who am I? Just a /b/tard. A little bird on top of your fat heads.
pic related

[Radiant !YJgDU2f8Hs No.4677277]

before the universe existed, there was nothing.

from this void, an equal amount of matter and anti matter were spontaneously generated from each other via seperation (-100 + 100 = 0) If you are skeptical of this, here is an article that corroborates this theory:

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html

This begs the question of where the anti-matter went.

It exists on a plane of existence that is opposite ours and that we (probably) will never be able to experience. Stephen Hawking refers to this idea as the "negative timeline." By the way, his hypothesis is incorrect, but he is on the right track to figuring out the correct solution.

[Anonymous No.4677298]

>>4677277

[Anonymous No.4677310]

>>4677277
>mfw an image macro that I made is used with that kind of post.

[Anonymous No.4677315]

>>4677310

>mfw
>you're an idiot and a liar

[Anonymous No.4677336]

>>4677315
And you're using ad hominem to defend an idiot.

Here's another I made for /sci/. You can check the exif data on both. Made with PS CS3 in 2010 and 2011.

[Anonymous No.4677350]

>>4677336

>be 2000 years ago
>sun revolves around earth
>only idiots believe otherwise

>yfw the statement in >>4677277 becomes common knowledge within your lifetime and you heard it first from a guy on /sci/ many years before bespectacled eggheads like you who do nothing all day other than circlejerk on the scientific processes figured it out.

[Anonymous No.4677357]

>>4677350
Stupid drivel in an internet image board does not science make.

[Anonymous No.4677364]

>>4677357

well asshole,

if you didn't understand something I said you could have asked for clarification instead of immediately disqualifying anything that doesnt fit your physics textbook example of the way the universe works.

Now you'll just have to wait until my theory is published.

[Anonymous No.4677373]

not other guy

I also have some theories. Perhaps we could let them battle it out in an arena like Mechwarriors! Yeah!
That would be sooo cool!

[Anonymous No.4677376]

>>4677364
That's not a theory, that's not even a clear hypothesis. It's just an idea you posted.

And it's not even an original idea. The same has been written by several scifi authors in the last thirty years.

And while their texts were a whole lot better structured and more intelligible than the post above, it didn't qualify as a theory either.

TL;DR: piss off

[Anonymous No.4677394]

>>4677376

like I said before,

if you don't understand something, it's perfectly fine and acceptable to ask questions. Being sealed off in the world of "pure science" causes you to 1) be a virgin and 2) close your mind to everything that "science" hasn't proven yet.

That post was vague for a very specific reason that I hope you are intelligent enough to deduce.

As for originality, is there some sort of law that all ideas must be completely original? Steve Jobs made his entire fortune off of improving other people's ideas and many scientists blatantly ripped their ideas off of each other (cough watson and crick).

tl;dr stop being a whiny pussy faggot, be inquisitive, and be willing to learn if you ever want to be a real scientist instead of a washed up lab assistant at a community college.

[Radiant !YJgDU2f8Hs No.4677400]

>>4677373

Only if I'm allowed to have this guy < on my team
:P

[Anonymous No.4677417]

>>4677277
>"before the universe existed, there was nothing. "

Total fucking FAIL there bub. Just fail. That's all that sentence is. I am not even going to chop up the rest.
Dimensions are not likely to spontaneously appear just because you can't fathom how they might have been caused.
Just. Go. And. Read. Something. Before. I. Rage. At. You.

[Anonymous No.4677433]

>>4677400
First explain what "nothing" is and how it got that way.

And how is that bird going to use the knife? Seriously.

[Anonymous No.4677434]

>>4677417

>Total fucking FAIL there bub. Just fail.

Prove it.
I'll prove my side after your next reply

[Anonymous No.4677439]

>>4677433

I will explain after that fag replies to my request for him to prove that there was NOT a period of time of nothing before the universe was created.

[Anonymous No.4677441]

>>4677434
I did. It's okay if you read more than one sentence at a time. Try it.

Here, I'll explain again: "Dimensions are not likely to spontaneously appear just because you can't fathom how they might have been caused."
1)you say "universe" without defining it.
2)you say "nothing" because you can't fathom dimensional precursors of any sort, I would guess.
Good luck with the bird. It's going to choke if it tries to swallow that knife.

[Anonymous No.4677450]

>>4677441

where on earth did you get the notion that dimensions have to be created?

our universe - everything that currently exists

tell me what you want to know about the dimensions and I will tell you what I know

[Anonymous No.4677460]

>>4677394
Oh, I am willing to learn. Fortunately one of the things I've learned is the distinction between pure BS and actual science. Which is why I find it so hilarious that you're taking your little post so seriously.

[Anonymous No.4677467]

>>4677450
Why would I want to do that? It seems clear you do not know very much at all.
All we would be doing is finding out the limits of your vast ignorance. Why is that my problem?
Why should I have to quiz you until everyone can see your vast ignorance? I have no interest in your ignorance or your lack of understanding. I already know they exist.

[Anonymous No.4677472]

>>4677460

I don't have to tell you anything. Like I said before there is a reason why I am being vague and if you knew what I knew, it would all make sense.

If you're a stubborn enough fool to not want to listen when someone is telling a secret, you can just go back to masturbating to your physics textbook using your never ending tears as lube.

not only that, but you ruined it for this guy >>4677433 who wanted to listen to what I had to say.

I'm done here.

[Anonymous No.4677488]

>>4677472
So we don't get to hear how that bird is going to use the knife?
OKAY RAGE TIME!!!!

[Anonymous No.4677501]

>>4677472
You're talking with two guys. I don't give two shits about you not saying anything.
Actually, I'd prefer it if you stopped posting altogether.

[Anonymous No.4677502]

>>4677488

>And how is that bird going to use the knife? Seriously.

Very carefully.

[pp sucker No.4677504]

>>4673281
>>4673281
>>4673281
>>4673281