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?
-
-
-
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 -
What im trying to get at is: since we apparently dont yet have a unifying theory that explains all fundamental forces, is it possible that we lack something in our understanding there that would account for the observed discrepancy between matter and antimatter?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Absolutely that’s possible.. but I guess what I’m trying to say that the thing that we lack is most likely not a new fundamental force.. there is still a lot of unexplored possibilities within the SM which we (me actually in my current paper) are exploring now
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.
