As we understand it, antimatter is exactly like matter, just opposite charge. So there had to be more matter for there to be matter left over. Of course, figuring out why this happened is part of why physics exists! Which means looking into differences b/w them + other things.
-
-
Replying to @Astropartigirl
So it's possible that there are other differences between matter and antimatter (other than charge) that account for why there is more of one than the other, but we simply haven't discovered them yet?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Astropartigirl @ejpbruel
It’s possible that there could exist other quantum numbers (charge, color, etc) that are conserved at a higher energy scales.. but given the success of the standard model at ~10TeV it is unlikely that antimatter possesses additional properties
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
I really wish I understood all this stuff better. I have a high level understanding of what you folks do, but its hard to find any resources that go in more detail that dont require a degree in physics :-D
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
I agree it can get a bit jargony sometimes.. the main thing is that there are only a few properties that (anti) matter can have.. why? We measure (anti)matter all the time in the LHC.. as far as we can see, there are 3 fundamental forces (and hence 3 measurable properties)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Wait. Only three? I thought there were four! Electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
Yes! And gravity but I left it out because it’s not a part of our fundamental particle theory.. but yes! It’s there haha
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
I see what youre saying though. The fundamental forces are exactly those things we can measure to see what makes antimatter different from antimatter. If antimatter has some hidden property weve so far missed, thats akin to saying theres a fundamental force weve so far missed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Which seems exceedingly unlikely! Im curious though: why exactly did you leave gravity out? Ive been told it doesnt really fit in the standard model, but in what sense?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Well I left it out because I do a lot of particle physics haha.. But it doesn’t fit in the standard model because it is a Quantum Field Theory.. and it happens that when we follow our usual process to quantize a theory the equations become ill defined
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Ill defined in what way? Im a layman here, but are we talking about something like a division by zero?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
You’re fine. Great questions. First, I don’t think I can explain it better than Carlo Rovelli on
@seanmcarroll’s podcast.. but in essence, quantizing gravity means quantizing space and time.. hence the notion of a “point” becomes ill defined, which leads to problems1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
