apparently baryogenesis wasn't the genesis of baryons. did i understand that right. that's messed up
-
Show this thread
-
positive baryon number yes, positive number of baryons no. messed up
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
-
what kind of maniac civilization would define baryogenesis as something else than the genesis of baryons but never say that explicitly
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
A baryon is a particle (-on) that embodies baryism, or the baryic principle. We live in a baryic universe, one with net positive B=baryon number=baryism. Baryogenesis is the genesis of baryism. Look, I'm trying here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @calxolotl @VesselOfSpirit
For that matter, baryogenesis probably happened before hadronization; bare quarks were the torchbearers of baryism at first.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @calxolotl
that's what was bothering me. i guess thinking in terms of baryism works but that's not how people talk about it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
what if we renamed quarks to baryons. that will be much less confusing
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.