Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why matter matters in the universe
uninews.unimelb.edu.au — A new physics discovery explores why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. The paper reveals that investigation into the process of B-meson decays has given insight into why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.
cosmikdebris- 583 diggs
- digg it
- Acronym, on 03/28/2008, -19/+1Please...I never got to do it..
------------------------------------------
Why matter matters in the universe
Media Release, Friday 28 March 2008
A new physics discovery explores why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.
The latest research findings, which involved significant contributions from physicists at the University of Melbourne, have been recently published in the prestigious journal Nature.
The paper reveals that investigation into the process of B-meson decays has given insight into why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.
“B-mesons are a new frontier of investigation for us and have proved very exciting in the formation of new thought in the field of particle physics.” said Associate Professor Martin Sevior of the University’s School of Physics who led the research.
Sevior says that B-mesons contain heavy quarks that can only be created in very high energy particle accelerators. Their decays provide a powerful means of probing the exotic conditions that occurred in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang created the Universe.
“Our universe is made up almost completely of matter. While we’re entirely used to this idea, this does not agree with our ideas of how mass and energy interact. According to these theories there should not be enough mass to enable the formation of stars and hence life.”
“In our standard model of particle physics, matter and antimatter are almost identical. Accordingly as they mix in the early universe they annihilate one another leaving very little to form stars and galaxies. The model does not come close to explaining the difference between matter and antimatter we see in the nature. The imbalance is a trillion times bigger than the model predicts.”
Sevior says that this inconsistency between the model and the universe implies there is a new principle of physics that we haven’t yet discovered.
“Together with our colleagues in the Belle experiment, based at KEK in Japan, we have produced vast numbers of B mesons with the world’s most intense particle collider.”
“We then looked at how the B-mesons decay as opposed to how the anti-B-mesons decay. What we find is that there are small differences in these processes. While most of our measurements confirm predictions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, this new result appears to be in disagreement.”
“It is a very exciting discovery because our paper provides a hint as to what the new principle of physics is that led to our Universe being able to support life.”- fatrandy13, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3burried for the preface
- piesforyou, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3What are you doing?
- AlienClown, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Posting it incase the site goes down I think.
- MforMike, on 03/28/2008, -10/+4ive known this for decades
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Why? What made you realize this?
- GIACOMOSAN, on 03/28/2008, -5/+19Doesn't matter.
- Masticity, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1you stole my comment you bastard!
- postitnote, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3What is matter? Nevermind. What is the mind? Never matter.
- MasterPlayer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3You butchered it postitnote, it's actually, "What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"
- BryanG412, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1I got nothin out of this
- Pstall, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3Pshhh everyone knows that matter has been waging a war against anti-matter for millinua...
- SolidEnder, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Wtf is a millinua?
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -3/+0It's speculated. Einstein's theory was once believed in by some people until it was discovered that objects can travel faster than lightspeed.
- wrathchilde, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Relativity only says nothing can accelerate to lightspeed, not that it is impossible to travel faster.
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0You missed the point. Einstein based his theory around lightspeed being the absolute maximum speed.
- wrathchilde, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Relativity only says nothing can accelerate to lightspeed, not that it is impossible to travel faster.
- Marijuana, on 03/28/2008, -0/+30I forgot where I heard this but it stuck with me: "The Human race is just the universe trying to understand itself"
- Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I am not 100% sure. But I beleive I saw it on the univserse show that comes on the history channel. They were also discussing matter and anitmatter in that episode.
- Harabeck, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I know I heard it on the universe as well. I think it was an episode discussing several big "mysteries".
- PseudoThink, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I know a very similar quote was used in Babylon 5, though it was "we are" instead of "the human race is".
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Was it about neogenisis? Otherwise I don't understand the logic of this.
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1And no, I don't mean the Sega console...
- Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I am not 100% sure. But I beleive I saw it on the univserse show that comes on the history channel. They were also discussing matter and anitmatter in that episode.
- oilcan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0what? no mention of hocus-pocus magically delicious dark matter? I'm disappointed!
- chanop, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6My Physics Professor explained this in a way that's very easy to understand. And I found this which is very similar to how my Prof. explained all this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4udUvxX8upE- SSCrow, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Genius!
- Akronos, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Freakin' knew uuiU were ***** with a link to a rick roll. There is no way anyone can easily explain this.
Guess I now I have to memorize the upE ending as well. - KingGorilla, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2It all makes sense now!
- offspring06, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I never thought about it like that before.
- e1ioan, on 03/28/2008, -10/+0...because antimatter... there is none... prove me wrong and show me some (not just in theory).
- asskicker32, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5would you say that gravity doesnt exist? Prove it.
- Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7We can produce anti-matter. So it does exist.
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0We can? How?
- noumuon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4in particle collisions
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -5/+0You mean the Large Hydron Collider at CERN? That hasn't proven anything yet.
- Harabeck, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3No, there are other colliders in the world you know.
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I can't find anything on Wikipedia and Google. Can you point me an article? I am not trying to prove you wrong... I just want to know more about this stuff.
- Matteos, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Fermilab, which has the Tevatron, just outside of Chicago.
Oh and don't forget PET scans, they use positrons.
- noumuon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4in particle collisions
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0We can? How?
- SolidEnder, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Antimatter isn't theory... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ ...
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1That remains to be seen. May there is a balance between matter and anti-matter.
- hauntedchippy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Creationist logic doesn't apply in the real world.
- vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Indeed. You have to at least admit the Big Bang happened. There is proof it happened and it is called background radiation. If you deny that then you are denying the truth. Simple as that.
- case42tlc, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Ever have a PET scan, moron? It works by detecting positrons. Positrons are antimatter. Case closed.
- failedpimp, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Of course matter matters, that's why it's called matter. Geez.
- influenceuh, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9its because the antimatter intermix chambers are ***** up again. What we need to do is get that damn magnetic containment field back online.
- pentupentropy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Ideas in physics are changing these days faster and faster because of the technology available, as opposed to tools like apple trees in the days of Newton, who theorized gravity moving at the speed of light. Schools should teach more like this where sciences are concerned, and stress ideas rather than everything as fact.
http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/18/1/- twertyto, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1"where sciences are concerned, and stress ideas rather than everything as fact."
That didn't make any sense.- bryan879, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I think he means that what you are being taught isn't the final word on something. That we are constantly learning and perfecting ideas. To encourage out of the box thinking so we don't get stuck on something we "know" is true if evidence shows otherwise.
- jj101, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Yeah mate but some people will never need to know these things in depth will they? Obviously the science that is taught to kids is watered down, as is maths and economics. Why bother teaching kids about 5 states of matter when all they want to do is play football and chase girls? I think it is fine to teach them there are 3 - it at least gives them an understanding and a framework. Yes its wrong but if they don't persue a higher education or go on to be scientists it won't really impact their lives, and if they do then they'll find out them anyway.
/Assuming you are referring to the article you linked to and not making some ignorant point about not teaching science because it (apparently) contradicts religion. - noumuon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4according to newton's work, gravity was instantaneous. sounds like you need to go back to school, as your education seems below par with even high school.
- twertyto, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1"where sciences are concerned, and stress ideas rather than everything as fact."
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1OMG He stole my theory!!!
- Lehawk, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!”
- azwaxcats, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Let the "It matters", "It doesn't matter" jokes commence.
- leerayIG88, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2In other news... Halo 3 rapes a little kid.
- mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2FTA: [[...this does not agree with our ideas of how mass and energy interact. According to these theories there should not be enough mass to enable the formation of stars and hence life...In our standard model of particle physics, matter and antimatter are almost identical. Accordingly as they mix in the early universe they annihilate one another leaving very little to form stars and galaxies. The model does not come close to explaining the difference between matter and antimatter we see in the nature. The imbalance is a trillion times bigger than the model predicts.]]
Simple explanation: there's something wrong with your models and theories. Back to the drawing board, friends.- oneoverzero, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2we know our model's aren't perfect, they work with some things and not with others. the whole point of science is perfecting the flaws in our theories
- mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I agree. Which is why I proposed a return to the drawing board.
- RexxxMaster, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Well what if ant-matter was Sub-atomic particulars that can't be stop. Do to the fact there to small. making big voids in space...
- oneoverzero, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2we know our model's aren't perfect, they work with some things and not with others. the whole point of science is perfecting the flaws in our theories
- mt4055, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What?
- omikun, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2What a worthless article. All it said was B-meson and anti-B-meson particles decay in slightly different ways that goes against what is predicted. Great. So what? How does it tie back to more matter in the universe? I want my that 1min of my life reading that and posting this back
- novakyu, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The problem with the article is that it doesn't even mention the keyword: CP violation, i.e. the breaking of the symmetry between matter and antimatter (CP stands for "charge conjugation and parity reversal" operation, which is what you need to do to make, say, an electron into a positron), which may explain why we have matter (rather than antimatter ... or equal parts matter and antimatter located at different parts in space).
You can, if you wish of course, read all about it on a Wikipedia page or something, but it seems like this page (http://www.physics.uc.edu/~kayk/cpviol/CP_A0.html) seems to put study of B mesons in the proper perspective: we have reached our limit with K mesons (CP violation in K meson decay is included in the Standard Model, which predicts, under some conditions of Big Bang, that we should have enough matter in the entire universe to make up only a single galaxy---obviously wrong), and there's hope that B mesons would reveal additional sources of CP violation.
- novakyu, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The problem with the article is that it doesn't even mention the keyword: CP violation, i.e. the breaking of the symmetry between matter and antimatter (CP stands for "charge conjugation and parity reversal" operation, which is what you need to do to make, say, an electron into a positron), which may explain why we have matter (rather than antimatter ... or equal parts matter and antimatter located at different parts in space).
- MasterThief117, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Err, if there was more antimatter in the universe, we would just call it "matter" and the matter we have now "antimatter"
- novakyu, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2The real question is not "why do we have matter rather than antimatter?" The real question is, given the apparent symmetry between matter and antimatter (called CP symmetry, search for it, if you are interested), why should we have more of one over the other? i.e. why do we not have equal parts of matter and antimatter in the universe (best astronomical observations suggest otherwise; i.e. we do not see the region where the matter and antimatter meet and emit radiation as they annihilate each other)?
CP violation, already detected in the decay of K mesons, may provide the answer (article alludes to it but does not address it directly), but from what has been detected so far, it's too little. And hence the interest in B mesons.
- novakyu, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2The real question is not "why do we have matter rather than antimatter?" The real question is, given the apparent symmetry between matter and antimatter (called CP symmetry, search for it, if you are interested), why should we have more of one over the other? i.e. why do we not have equal parts of matter and antimatter in the universe (best astronomical observations suggest otherwise; i.e. we do not see the region where the matter and antimatter meet and emit radiation as they annihilate each other)?
- Bactame, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Please U of Melborne...you say you know something and then don't tell us what you know?#!!!
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by