Comments on: In the Universe’s Decisive Battle, Why Did Matter Prevail Over Antimatter?

By: Jaleel

Jaleel — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:03:15 +0000

I believe J Clarkson is correct. The imperfection of natural occurrences and nature is considered a fundamental law of this universe and this law may be governed by something called spontaneous symmetry breaking. The initial spontaneous break may have caused a runaway effect so that electrons now dominate. Also, I’m with Trevor, per the standard model of quantum mechanics any subatomic particle could move forward or backward in time and this has nothing to do with whether the object has a positive or negative charge which is basically what we are talking about when we are discussing matter and antimatter particles. If we were in another universe where the atoms are predominately possessed of positrons, electrons would be the basis for antimatter. This has to do with only one of the forces (electromagnetic) and which, so far as we can tell, has nothing to do with gravity. Antimatter doesn’t mean opposite in all ways, in fact it is opposite in just one way, so no anti-gravity (mainly because opposite charges attract and the electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity) and no backward time travel for antimatter particles as a special case. Now theoretical superluminal particles, that’s a “whole other matter”.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:47:35 +0000

source on the known theory in physics that says antimatter travels back in time? i am an undergrad student at Colorado College studying particle physics and as far as the physics we know of antimatter isn’t matter going back in time, it’s identical matter of the opposite charge. granted my limited knowledge compared to grad students and actual physicists, i feel like a particle traveling back in time would be a prevalent theory in current physics textbooks and essays

By: irj

irj — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:41:33 +0000

Statements about the prevalence of matter rather than antimatter in the universe should include the term “as far as we can see”. If we assume that equal quantities of matter and anitmatter were created in the big bang, what we can see now is primarily matter and we see it because of the influence of gravity: galaxies, stars comets etc. If the created anti-matter enjoys anti-gravity then the particles would never form galaxies but would continue to rush away from the big bang and now be out of sight. When will someone measure the gravity force experienced between anti-particles?

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 28 May 2010 04:25:41 +0000

I agree with fb36′s reply. Two universes were created by the big bag: matter/positive time and antimatter/negative time.

By: fb36

fb36 — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:32:22 +0000

Actually there is a known theory in physics that says anti-particles are particles that move backward in time.
If it is true then maybe Big Bang really produced matter and anti-matter in equal amounts and later they separated in time w/ one of the twin universes going backwards in time and the other going forward.
That would also explain the problem of arrow of time.

By: J Clarkson

J Clarkson — Mon, 24 May 2010 10:38:53 +0000

Clearly it is there because “nothing is perfect in the universe” is a fundamental law of nature. If it was perfect, we wouldn’t exist to have this conversation. One of the early conditions of the universe would clearly have to be lopsided here or there to create matters dominance.

By: RS

RS — Sun, 23 May 2010 16:31:55 +0000

This is proof that we as a species have much to learn about the universe.