Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter
New Scientist ^ | 18 March 2008 | Valerie Jamieson

Posted on 03/18/2008 10:21:29 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

IT IS one the biggest mysteries in physics - where did all the antimatter go? Now a team of physicists claims to have found the first ever hint of an answer in experimental data. The findings could signal a major crack in the standard model, the theoretical edifice that describes nature's fundamental particles and forces.

In its early days, the cosmos was a cauldron of radiation and equal amounts of matter and antimatter. As it cooled, all the antimatter annihilated in collisions with matter - but for some reason the proportions ended up lopsided, leaving some of the matter intact.

Physicists think the explanation for this lies with the weak nuclear force, which differs from the other fundamental forces in that it does not act equally on matter and antimatter. This asymmetry, called CP violation, could have allowed the matter to survive to form the elements, stars and galaxies we see today.

The standard model, our best effort to describe the universe's structure, fails to fully explain CP violation. Many alternative theories claim to have the answer, such as those incorporating supersymmetry, extra dimensions and hitherto unseen forces. However, they often invoke new particles, and experiments have yet to turn up evidence of these.

Particle physicists have long thought that they might find such evidence in a particle called the Bs meson, which comprises a bottom antiquark bound to a strange quark. The Bs is one of a handful of mesons that transforms into its own antiparticle and back again 3 trillion times per second before decaying into other particles (see Diagram). These oscillations between matter and antimatter make it a good place to look for evidence that CP violation goes beyond the standard model.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: antimatter; physics; stringtheory

1 posted on 03/18/2008 10:21:30 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; NormsRevenge; KevinDavis; SunkenCiv; bruinbirdman

fyi


2 posted on 03/18/2008 10:26:51 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

3 posted on 03/18/2008 10:28:19 PM PDT by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I described this exact same model a few years back here but it was rejected by some of the hard core eggheads.

If we put 100 pennies in a bag and dump them out, the odds are very, very slim we get 50-50.

Say we get 42-48. The 42 antimatters neutralize 42 of the matters, dumping out a huge amount of energy (and mass itself in the form of neutrinos), and leaves 6 of the original 100 that are detectable.

I’m not sure what the average of the deviation from 50-50 would be, but if that expected average matches whatever observables there are, then people ought to give it some serious consideration.


4 posted on 03/18/2008 10:28:31 PM PDT by djf (She's filing her nails while they're draggin the lake....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

And my bad... 42 and 48 is 90. I meant 52-48.

Same principle.


5 posted on 03/18/2008 10:30:34 PM PDT by djf (She's filing her nails while they're draggin the lake....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Particle physicists have long thought that they might find such evidence in a particle called the Bs meson, which comprises a bottom antiquark bound to a strange quark. The Bs is one of a handful of mesons that transforms into its own antiparticle and back again 3 trillion times per second before decaying into other particles (see Diagram). These oscillations between matter and antimatter make it a good place to look for evidence that CP violation goes beyond the standard model.

I knew it.! The ol’ Bs meson, Of course, its its so elementary.. <8-}


6 posted on 03/18/2008 10:32:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE’s toll-free tip hotline —1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRGeT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I think I saw it one night in a physics lab in my early college career....
7 posted on 03/18/2008 10:37:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; All

We need to start research BS meson extensively! Or else we are gonna have a BS meson gap!


8 posted on 03/18/2008 10:39:19 PM PDT by notdownwidems (Shellback, pollywogs! 1980)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
3 trillions per second....is...3 x 10**12....

Now that is fast....

9 posted on 03/18/2008 10:39:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

back when your eyesight was sharper no doubt,, ;-)

3 trillion times a second.. wow.. I guess they don’t call it a strange quark for nothing.


10 posted on 03/18/2008 10:43:17 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE’s toll-free tip hotline —1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRGeT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems

a BS gap, eh, would that make it eligible to be called an Obameson


11 posted on 03/18/2008 10:44:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE’s toll-free tip hotline —1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRGeT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; ...
"Dang, where'd I leave that flippin' particle?" ping:
thanks Ernest.
12 posted on 03/18/2008 10:59:26 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/______________________Profile updated Saturday, March 1, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
3 trillion times a second.. wow.. I guess they don’t call it a strange quark for nothing.

They don't call it "nothing" to be strange.

13 posted on 03/18/2008 11:05:12 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I have one parked in the garage.

yitbos

14 posted on 03/18/2008 11:06:11 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"3 trillions per second....is...3 x 10**12...."

That's why they can't find it. The calculation is B mesoned up. It should be 3.1416 X 10**12.

Where's my million bucks.

yitbos

15 posted on 03/18/2008 11:09:47 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks for the ping


16 posted on 03/18/2008 11:24:45 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Now that is some heavyweight physiscs!

or maybe not if the bottom antiquark becomes unbound to the strange quark

The universe may disintegrate in the blink of an eye! oh my, oh my!


17 posted on 03/18/2008 11:52:52 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: djf
Say we get 42-48.

You owe me a dime.

I’m not sure what the average of the deviation from 50-50 would be,

In N independent trials of an experiment with a probability of success (heads) equal to p, the average number of successes would be p*N and the variance would be p*(1-p)*N. (Standard deviation sqrt(p*(1-p)*N))). In a hundred trials with a fair coin, the mean would be 50, and the standard deviation would be 5. About two thirds of the time, you would expect to get between 45 and 55 heads (or tails.)

As the number of trials grows arbitrarily large the distribution approaches a normal distribution (DeMoivre-LaPlace theorem, a special case of the central limit theorem.) For most purposes, one can make practial predictions about likelihoods of outcomes by assuming the population conforms to a normal distribution, but care needs to be taken for tail probabilities. See the binomial distribution for all the gory details.

The ratio of to the standard deviation to the mean decreases as 1/sqrt(N), regardless of p, for p not equal to zero or one. (In which cases, the std. dev. is zero.)

18 posted on 03/19/2008 3:06:46 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The women got the vote and the Nation got Harding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I have regular plain old BASIC somewhere. Suppose if I got ambitious, I could run it through ten thousand trials or so.

Then convert the program to do roulette...

;-)


19 posted on 03/19/2008 3:23:15 AM PDT by djf (She's filing her nails while they're draggin the lake....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems

Lots of BS here!


20 posted on 03/19/2008 4:33:10 AM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: djf

% some lunch time matlab, at your service

>> heads = rand(100, 1e5)> .5; % 100,000 trials of coin 100 tosses

>> total_heads = sum(heads); % number of heads

>> mean(total_heads)

ans =

49.9962 % we expect about 50;

>> std(total_heads)

ans =

4.9998 % we expect about 5

>> lx =length( find(mean_x >=45 & mean_x <= 55));

%% “expected” number between 45 and 55
>> fprintf( ‘%20.0f\n’, sum( binopdf( 45:55, 100, .5))*1e5)

72875

%% experimental number between 45 and 55

>> fprintf( ‘%20.0f\n’, lx)

72523


21 posted on 03/19/2008 9:38:04 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The women got the vote and the Nation got Harding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

When set on ‘high’, how often will the water molecules in a cup of water flip flop per second? ... JOhn Kerry must be envious ...


22 posted on 03/19/2008 10:03:30 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Using a microwave oven, BTW. Whew, this high math stuff gets me all agitated.


23 posted on 03/19/2008 10:08:12 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: djf

I think your analogy to a bag of pennies is a good one. Alan Guth believes that the actual ratio ended up something like 51-49, which would mean that all the galaxies we see, and all the dark matter we think is there, represents something like 2% of the original mass at the time of the Big Bang.


24 posted on 03/20/2008 5:23:29 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets; samtheman

OK.
I dusted off the cobwebs and slapped together a GWBASIC program.

It basically (ha, ha!) used the RND function to give me a random number, multiplied it by 100, took the integer part and added 1. I ran the rnd function through a few thousand iterations to make sure it never returned either 0 or 1, and it was cool.

Each of my “100 penny bags” constituted 1 trial, and there was a main loop driver so that I could dump the bag as many times as I wanted.

At the end of each trial, I took the LARGER of the number of heads or tails and added it to the total. This ends up giving me a number that represents the expected deviation from 50-50

results:
I did 3 runs with 1000 bag dumps and 1 run with 10,000 bag dumps
53.769
53.876
53.837

finally
53.996

Averaging these gives me about 53.855

So if our expected results were that 53.855 percent of matter was positive matter, and 46.145 percent of matter was antimatter, and all the stuff eradicated each other and left the excess, then we have:

7.71 percent of the mass left

that would mean 92.29 percent of the universe is composed of energy and neutrinos and whatever

The only thing I wasn’t sure of was that if it came up 50-50, it still got added in to the total. But if the universe started 50-50, we wouldn’t be here. So I am not sure how much that might skew the results, but I can play with it a bit more if I get ambitious.


25 posted on 03/20/2008 1:09:59 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: djf

Great work, for an off-the-cuff bit of programming.

But keep in mind, the bag of pennies is just an analogy, not a model.

What this posted article is saying is that there is a built-in predisposition biasing the results in favor of matter over anti-matter.

To match that, you’d need to find a bag of pennies that comes up 53.5% heads all the time.

That would be one valuable bag of pennies!


26 posted on 03/20/2008 2:02:28 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson