Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter

New Scientist ^ | 18 March 2008 | Valerie Jamieson

[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 B_s meson, which comprises a bottom antiquark bound to a strange quark. The B_s 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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Westlander]

[djf]

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.

[djf]

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

Same principle.

[NormsRevenge]

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-}

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think I saw it one night in a physics lab in my early college career....

[notdownwidems]

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

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

3 trillions per second....is...3 x 10**12....

Now that is fast....

[NormsRevenge]

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.

[NormsRevenge]

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

[SunkenCiv]

"Dang, where'd I leave that flippin' particle?" ping:

thanks Ernest.

[NutCrackerBoy]

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.

[bruinbirdman]

I have one parked in the garage.

yitbos

[bruinbirdman]

"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

[Quix]

Thanks for the ping

[valkyry1]

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!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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.)

[djf]

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...

;-)

[ricks_place]

Lots of BS here!