Wonderful truth-telling, as always! There's almost certainly more auntie matter than anti-matter. My mother had three sisters - and it did seem at times like they would annihilate each other.
"Physicists make a living from solving problems so they have an incentive in creating problems where there aren't any" I am a software developer and today I learned that physicists and programmers are very much alike. Great stuff as always, thanks for sharing! P.s. "it's a highly speculative idea, that is a polite way of saying that is nonsense" makes a great line for your merchandise imho
I don't know, in my experience programmers mostly have to live with other people creating problems where there aren't any, and more importantly, where there shouldn't be any. Like changing the requirements two hours before the deadline.
Sabine, you aren't merely a talented communicator and physicist, you're a super talented EPISTEMOLOGIST, which is something I feel a lot of modern science communicators forget in the face of catchy headlines and hype. We must take the world as it is, and meet it on its terms, and when we can't cut through the fog, we have to be comfortable enough with ourselves to understand where the limits of knowledge end. You do that consistently and with pluck, so THANK YOU for that!
The one thing that she is *not* (at least, in her videos) is a talented epistemologist! I gather she _is_ a talented physicist; and she is also a great communicator of science, one of the best on youtube.
Unfortunately that level of humility is currently not in vogue in popular science or society in general and even less the understanding of why it’s important.
it's like fake physicists don't even want the truth to be found out, cause it makes every other hypothesis obsolete, theirs included. Not much has changed from the times of Galileo
As an engineer who is fairly well versed in how the "normal size" things around me work, I really appreciate your videos that talk about the really small and really big that often tend to behave differently. Thank you!
@@alvinuli5174 I think it's very helpful for content creators of this level to understand who their audience is. Working people have a right to be proud to exist in any "intellectual" spaces.
I watch a couple of your videos every day. Even as s a 79 year old retired physicist they all are mind-expanding and give me several hours of thoughtful pondering. Thank you.
I've often wondered if the baryon asymmetry could just be a mundane statistical blip. Like, you can't flip a coin 10 times, or even 10⁹⁷ times, and expect to reliably get a perfectly exactly equal number of heads and tails, no matter how perfect the coin is or how perfectly you flip it.
I've had the same thought, like what if we live in a patch, larger than the observable universe, that happens to have more baryons? And elsewhere, the situation is the other way around, or more or less in balance. But, that would have to arise during the inflationary era, blowing up a patch that had a few less anti-quarks to the size of the universe wee see. But the quarks appeared at the _end_ of the inflation, so any such statistical fluctuation would not show a uniform value over all of observed space.
The problem is that standard deviations (statistical blips) are of the order of the square root of the number of particles/events. So in the case of the baryon content of the observable universe couldnt be much larger than O(10^40) or O(10^45) considering the particle content is O(10^80) to O(10^90).
Everytime you flip a coin and get heads you also get not-tails and vice versa. After flipping the coin several times n you would expect: haids + tails = n = not-head + not-tails. But when your result would be: haids + tails > not-head + not-tails you maybe would worry.
The low key humor in this video is on point. I love how you made this into a “teachable moment” about initial conditions and how our current theories work.
She’s wrong. Not about Dirac, or the incorrect assumptions that some scientists have made. Nor is she wrong (necessarily) about the vast sums we spend on colliders and how it might better be used. I’m not qualified to quantify that last. But, to argue that there is no value in trying to understand why anti-matter did not annihilate the entire universe at its inception is just wrong headed. She’s trying to invalidate the science by invalidating the question, which is a personality thing, not a scientific approach. Even she admits it would be great to know the answer. We don’t have to call it a, “problem,” but surely it’s a sensible question? She makes an assumption of her own; that there simply wasn’t an equal amount of anti-matter, but she cannot know that, simply by inferring it from our existence? The discovery of anti-matter stars would make a nonsense of that assumption for a start. There could have been a condition that kept anti-matter apart from baryonic matter, which would in turn, tell us incredibly important things about physics and the universe? To say the question has no value is no different to saying any question in physics has no value, despite her knowledge that many of the greatest, most important discoveries that have tangibly changed our world, were made by scientists who were simply interrogating questions that interested them and could have had no way of knowing where their investigations would ultimately lead. Newton could never have known that he was contributing to GPS Satellite technology for instance. It strikes me as a stubborn resistance to accelerators has been conflated with the basis of their use in her mind? She’d be more honest if she questioned their use alone, rather than the question itself. When she does that I see a slippery slight of hand at work, but she’s merely sawing at the branch she’s sitting on. Anyone can say, “It is what it is,” about any value. Indeed, many scientists have done so in history, and later come off as the fools for doing so. Edward Hoyle did the same thing when he coined the, “Big Bang Theory,” for work that he personally didn’t like, yet which proved to be perfectly true. I wish scientists would stay out of their internal politics in these videos and just get on with the science? There’s a, “teachable moment,” in this for her too.
@@ashroskell Sounds fascinating, but all I know about the topic is that you can’t control your antimatter engine without dilithium crystals. Another thing I know about any science is that there’s no absolute right or wrong at this level of theoretical physics. There’s only more or less probable. Basically, any ideas on the matter at hand could be valid unless proven false.
@@ashroskell I think you're absolutely right and I added a comment saying a similar thing myself. At one time the orbits of the planets would have been considered "just so" and so science would not even have got started if we thought apparent pre-conditions were off-limits for further enquiry. I'm a big fan of Sabine's but I think she's looking at this one the wrong way.
@@ashroskell in my mind the most interesting point raised is “why do we expect the ratio to be 1”? Is there something special about that number other than it is pleasant and symmetrical? I don’t see any argument here against conducting science to answer questions, but is there some mathematical basis for this value being something other than what is observed? If not what question are we answering?
I thought the entire point of this question is that when we produce antimatter ourselves, there is always a corresponding amount of matter particles created at the same time (edit: well, maybe not, according to some LHC results in 2010?). If no baryonic matter could exist at the moment of the big bang itself, what process created more matter than antimatter afterward and why are we unable to do the same, or perhaps even create more antimatter than matter?
@@NoahFriedman weirdly enough other physicists have gone down the same thought process and concluded that the explanation “because that’s how it is” is not satisfactory enough. We could argue the same way “because that’s how it is” for pretty much all physical phenomena in which case physics is completely rudimentary. Couldn’t we say the same for parity?
Hmm. So, Wikipedia says that “In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.” I’m not sure if that means that the universe could not have had a baryon number. But the question does remain: if Big Bang does not have to have a baryon number, then why does the number, when it does arise, have to be zero?
What I don‘t understand from her video: Does she hink the whole matter antimatter discussion is nonsense at all or does she think the particle accelerator business is just the wrong method for solving the problem?
Very much appreciated. There's nothing better than listening to someone with a thorough understanding of complex subject matter who can explain it in ways that an ordinary mind can assimilate. Nothing.
This reminds me a bit of the anisotropy stuff you touched on in a different video. The ratio could be 1 globally but fluctuate locally, so there's a hidden third question of, even if you assume that the ratio *should be* 1, you're sneaking in an assumption about the scale you'd expect to measure that at. The ratio is 1.000..whatever..001 in the *observable* universe. What makes this scale privileged? Perhaps we just randomly live in a matter-antisymmetric pocket of a matter-symmetric universe?
Well or even at the galaxy level. She makes a good point that it's hard to figure out how an anti-star in a normal galaxy could form - but does the same objection apply to an anti-galaxy forming in a normal galaxy cluster? Or an anti-galaxy-cluster forming in the observable universe? Would we be able to measure, with current instruments, matter-antimatter collisions between an anti-galaxy and the intergalactic matter that might wander into it?
@@ps.2That's also my naive guess if antimatter doesn't reverse time. Imagine if half the observed galaxy clusters out there are antimatter with enough distance to matter that only undetectable amounts of annihilation events occur.
I think the reason for '1' is quite simple: if matter and antimatter are same except for the charge, then these should be treated equally when it comes to creating matter/antimatter from 'nothing'. There should be no especial treatment for any of these. But that's more philosophy than physic I believe...
@Peter from NZ Not expert but that is also my understanding. What we perceive as assymetry, could just be a perception limitation. In the mayhem of inflation and hyper intense, merged fields of the early universe it seems to me quite possible matter and anti matter could have been mainly driven apart. The anti matter is out there alright but in a separate universe, well beyond our cosmic horizon.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
A value of 1.000... allows current physics to bootstrap a universe arising from nothing. It helps answer the question of why the univese exists without inventing an initial condition. Was there an initial condition that was biased in matter-antimatter? I don't know. But to say "it just is" is not better than "saying it should not be." Both are different points of view that are just as inexplicable. We are seeking answers here, and there does seem to be a riddle. Maybe we will never know the answer to it, but that for me doesn't mean we just shouldn't bother with figuring it out and accept the "is just is a value not quite equal to 1.000..." explanation.
If the implied ratio of M to (M) based on observations was 1.4 or 37.2, then Hosenfelder's argument would make a lot of sense, there would clearly be a mechanism that preferentially generated one form over the other. However, the universe that we observe appears to have a very strong "preference" for symmetry. Further 1.000000000001 is pretty darn close to 1, even for a physicist. If the universe's "initial conditions" had a preference for creating almost exactly the same amount of anti-matter as matter, then there is physics to be discovered to tell us why the ratio should be almost-but-not-quite 1. Physicists look at things that need explaining and try to explain them, that's kinda what physicists do. If they just did what Sabina does, and say, "well, that's just the way it is" then we would not have made much progress in the field.
@@paulpeterson4216 I agree. I appreciate Sabine for calling bulls**t on some things. We need somebody to keep our heads on straight. But she has not convinced me on this one. Like you said, if we just accept it then we would not have made much progress in the field. At the very least, this is a "something" and deserves more than a wave of the hand and let go. While I don't pretend to have the answer, I do understand there is a question that deserves one.
I'm more skeptical of this one from Sabine. She is usually spot on but here I think we have reasons beyond the Dirac equation to suspect that the pure energy of the very early Big Bang would have resulted in a 1:1 ratio of a. to m. Also, I do think that the CP violating interactions that have been seen in strange and bottom quarks may suggest the answer to question of why we have more matter. These quarks can only be produced in high energy particle collisions. I know Sabin is down on further investment into HEP but this problem seems to me to be one of the few reasons that might justify further exploration and particularly at current or future HEP facilities. Sabine, correct me if I'm overstated my position. I'm generally sympathetic towards less funding for HEP but here, I'm not.
the only proof that the universe is matte and not anti matter is the fact our local star system and galaxy is matter. And of course it is -- they were all formed from the same motion = the galaxy is spinning one way and not the other.Just like most of the planets all spin one way. So too does the particles in it all spin in a specific way, their initial motion during the early formation is imparted onto the whole batch. It could very well be that Andromedy IS anti matter. Otherwise why is it moving staight towards us, its going on the wrong way! lol. It could be antimatter and no one has the slightest idea because its exactly the same thing. anti matter is just the opposite of matter for us -- its completely relative. if you're in the field of a system, everything in that field will be tuned to the same essential motions and vectors. so its reasonable to assume the entire galaxy or most of it is matter except in extreme cases like if two black holes had a near miss. That could easily flip things about and cause chaos. But as for other galaxies, theres nothing to prevent it - a galaxy is not annhilating another galaxy at those distances, it stays naive to the spins of another galaxy and will probbaly Never collide with anything else. Even galaxy mergers are mostly just empty space.
here's the thing. Why exactly do you think that there was a moment when the universe was "pure energy"? If the universe really has more matter than anti-matter (as it seems) then that's not the case
@@LukeKenji thats where e=mc squared (einstein) and de broglies waves indicate that the universe is mostly waves of energy and particles come from energy thresholds maybe?
Great video as always Sabine; that said... ... Saying that the intrigue is unwarranted seems to underplay the significance of a physical constant being observed as SO close to 1. The number 1 is so universal and important in describing mathematical relationships, why is it not intriguing to find a physical result that deviates from it by so little? Also, I don't see why the distinction between the questions "Why 1?" and "Why 1.0000000001?" makes the discussion any more or less valid. No matter the order of advance, either line of questioning would inevitably lead to progress, regardless of the ultimate truth. I definitely agree that pop-sci media tends to completely fudge the delivery of concepts in regards to this topic, but to imply that further studies are some kind of wild goose chase just seems too close-minded to me. EDIT: some words and phrases
The point about "why 1?" vs "why 1.0000001?" is that both are equally "mysterious". There may be an underlying explanation, but there very well may not be. The universe could just have arbitrary initial conditions and parameters, and there is no way to tell a priori which ones have a deeper explanation and which ones do not. The mere existence of an arbitrary constant is not an actual problem that *requires* explanation. Only inconsistencies require explanation. Either inconsistencies between data and theory, internal inconsistencies within a theory, or inconsistencies between theories (e.g. General Relativity and the Standard Model)
I think Baryon asymmetry is more interesting as to how it relates to conservation of baryon number, and what that may suggest about the laws of physics.
Conservation of baryon number is not "baked in" into SM. It's one of so-called "accidental" symmetries of SM. This means that there can be an extension of SM which loses this property. (Contrast this with conservation of electrical charge, which *must* be retained by any extension).
It took me a while to suss out that SM was probably the standard model. Using abreviations outside your little circle isnt helpful, because most people are exposed to myriads of abreviations
CHARGE SYMMETRY IS FUNDAMENTAL to particle physics, and I'd argue the unifying, underlying, dielectric field of +ve cells bound by a free-flowing Dirac Sea of -ve 'Electron Gas' -- Anti-stars don't solve anything really, compared to taking the most logical leap, that 2 positrons collide with one electron at the right velocity and angle, (under the right gravity) to form a Proton, and 2 electrons collide with 1 positron to form an anti-proton... We know electrons and positrons come in pairs and are the building blocks of all matter... -- Why is there not one official, published line of enquiry where UP QUARKS are Positrons and DOWN QUARKS are Electrons? This is the fundamental error afflicted theoretical physics.. The evidence for this case is overwhelming to me. This is what all scattering experiments and matter creation and decay experiments point to... Why is the physics silent on this very logical, tiny little conceptual leap, at least for theoretical purposes?
Didn't Feynman say that antimatter behaved like matter going backwards in time? If so, then couldn't it have been that at the big bang time went in both directions, and there is an antimatter universe evolving "backwards" in time relative to our "forward" direction?
Yes. This is an actual model being fleshed out called "CPT Symmetric Universe" - it has some testable predictions to boot. Neil Turok is probably the most famous advocate & you can find some papers about it.
Are you saying our three dimensional universe is nothing but a part of a multi-dimensional explosion shockwave and the that's the reason we experience "movement in the time dimension at local rest" and an "expansion" of the universe? Obviously, I'm not a physicist.
Yes he did. "Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
I absolutely adore you, Sabine. You're a wonderful, brilliant and incredibly beautiful human being. I'm so happy amazing people like you make videos for us on youtube. Thank you so much ❤️
I love Sabine’s down-to-Earth, non-sensational, pragmatic, back-to-basics type of resolve. Physics really needs this today. The misunderstandings sometimes reach high places and sadly sensationalism is often a necessary evil to keep the funds coming in.
sabine's take is sensational in itself, and not many people in her field would agree with it. it's great that she's there to poke at this and other established theory, but just because she's a great communicator and against the consensus doesn't mean she's right. to put it another way: if the answer were so simple as making an assumption and being done with it, the issue would've been solved a hundred years ago. and maybe a few people like sabine would now be making speeches about "we can't just assume it willy-nilly, that is just science gobbledygook."
Sabine is saying something basically no other physicist would agree with. She's saying we should just give up on trying to explain it (which is her take on a bunch of other issues too).
From what I understand (which isn't much), in the initial moments after t=0, there were no particles but only energy which later formed particles and anti particles. Since a unit of energy creates equal masses of matter and antimatter, there should've been an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe. What exactly is wrong here? Also I don't think number of particles should be part of the initial conditions since they didn't exist in first few moments after t=0.
Her problem with your conclusion comes from your statement of, "Since a unit of energy creates equal masses of matter and antimatter, there should've been an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe." She's saying that maybe energy doesn't create an equal amount of matter and antimatter, but maybe a (very) slightly different ratio. This is, of course, against the idea of things like baryon conservation number, so I agree with you.
@Artem Down But wouldn't this imply a non isotropic pair creation model? Sure, antimatter and matter would have opposite momentum (well, not strictly opposite but conserved total momentum; that's probably just semantics as I get your point), but that's only per pair produced. There shouldn't be a preferred spacetime direction for matter and antimatter in bulk, right?
@Artem Down That doesn't sound like any known behaviour of energy-to-matter systems we know of, nor any known physics. I'm not saying that isn't allowed, but that I see no physical motivation for it. When we do particle or heavy ion collisions we see nothing of the sort. So I'll just say I'm not optimistic about those outlooks proving feasible, though I suppose some of them aren't ruled out by physical law per se (they could be by something like a statistical analysis, but that's more complex than I want to delve into!).
the thing is, there's no reason to think that at "t=0" (whatever that's supposed to mean) there wasn't any matter or anti-matter. In fact, if the universe really has more matter than anti-matter (as it seems to have, from our perspective) then at no point in time did it have "only energy".
This forced hypothesis of equal proportions of matter and anti-matter, as an initial condition, seems to me, again, to be a search for symmetry, which basically means using beauty as a criterion for truth.
Still you would have to explain why CPT symmetry will be broken at the beginning of the universe and then later comes into play. And CPT symmetry is fundamental to all quantum theories, so is not that easy as Sabine try to convince the viewer here.
In my view of anti-matter, the properties of a local lack of order within an ordered system, and the properties of added-back order within that same system, are identical except for a sign. As beautiful and unique of a symmetry a single snowflake crystal has in itself, it is the snowfall of many of them that makes winter fun, and snow useful in nature. Seeing the inner symmetries and their greater complexity as a system at the same time is not easy, but that is how it formed. Out of nothing appeared something. This thinking leads to an emergent assymmetry between the existance of matter and antimatter: There is so much more nothingness than somethingness in our Universe, that it is almost only matter that can have order and complexity persisting inside it. But, being a solid state physicist, having elementary particles more abundant than antiparticles within a space-time manifold of the universe that we can observe does not mean there is no manifold elsewhere where the opposite is true. In fact, it does make sense for both types of manifolds to exist with equal fraction within the same 4D universe unless it is pre-charged as suggested. Of course there is no way of knowing for sure weather we are matter within emptyness or antimatter within fullness, as we can't tell the difference while being one of the possibilties. It is interesting that there are 4 orthogonal space-time manifolds in 4D and we must be in one of them. If there was exactly zero coupling between them, ours would add exactly 25% to its 4D "gravitational wave" structure. But since ours add slightly more than that to it, the four manifolds must be connected somehow. At at least light-speed when-where it does, due to the orthogonality.
THE POSITRONIC UNIVERSE..... 2 Positrons collide with 1 electron at a suitable angle and velocity under high gravity and form a Proton. In a free state they are 99% electric energy (continuous vibes due to a permanent (barring annihilation) field imbalance trying to balance but failing). In a bound, neutralised state the spherical Electrostatic Force vibe energy turns into Strong Mass Force Bonds (there are 2 main possibilities for this force in my model thought experiment universe).. A Neutron is a Proton with an electron bound by the Nuclear Force that is not the same as the Strong Mass Force. -- Don't be BLINDED to the copious amounts of evidence that Up Quarks are Positrons and Down Quarks are Electrons, and that the 'fabric of space' is a (subelectric) charged matter-energy field of close-packed +ve cells (quanta) bound by free-flowing -ve subspace gas.. The simplest wave carrying, force carrying, fixed or variable metric (cell gap shrinks with gravity) DIELECTRIC FIELD.. The Positron-Electron Field.. -- Schrodinger never meant for his wave carrying field to be a 'probability field' - that is an artefact of The Measurement Problem.. There is no Antimatter Catastrophe.. Lager holes and sprays + chunks of cells quickly decay into electrons, positrons and larger nucleons... -- Hit a Proton with enough EM vibes (Transverse wave in the spherical vibe field of a charged particle caused by it moving up and down) and it will form a POSITRON-ELECTRON PAIR... THERE ARE ONLY 2 ELECTRIC CHARGES. Spin is a separate issue, QCD is confused but useful, QFT is utterly overly abstracted, but useful. -- It is a fudge because it invents a new 'physical' field for each new 'fundamental' 'particle' (MATTER-ENERGY FIELD FLUCTUATION).. ONLY POSITRONS & ELECTRONS are needed.. -- Dark Energy can be incorporated with gravity with a Brans-Dicle / Einstein-Dicke style GR with a variable spatial metric (local cell gap).. I take this further with one of my Strong Force Mass Models being a cubic-stretch and packed core, as gravity increases to the centre of mass - the centre of each electron and positron... Other model has a torus of loops of flowing -ve subspace gas and cells.
This is an insightful critique of how academics who solve problems are often incentivized to invent work for themselves. It extends beyond physics. I remember seeing a talk by Paul Horwich at UCD Dublin where he made similar observations about many philosophy departments.
It is more likely that he did not understand the motivation for their research. She is always mocking physicists and calling them opportunist but I think that means she is really an opportunist herself
@@fkeyvan Game recognizes game. Even if she's an opportunist...does that make her observation incorrect? Physics and science like most things human society has created is corrupted by people who want money, power, control. The mere suggestion that the sciences are above that sort of thing is quite honestly insane.
@@incognit01233 Do you really think that physiscists that work decades on antimatter issues do it for power and money? I don't think people that "waste" their lifes reading and writing papers are looking for that
Sabine, I live halfway from Silicon Valley to San Francisco. Last week I was in a local Starbucks and overheard this interchange: Day says, “ I love the weekends, especially Saturday”. His teenager responds, “What’s so great about Saturdays?” Simultaneous response from four surrounding tables, “ SABINE!!”. I agree with them, of course. Thank you for all your content. BTW, loved to Lex interview.
I truely love your fresh approach to these topics. Having your view points helps me to review my own understandings and to identify teachings that may just not be based on actual science. You have definitely helped me to see the trap of just believing the views of those that are considered learned and physics luminaries. I can better see that they are still human and prone to personal bias. And accepting any teaching as gospel just because the person teaching it is considered to be a leader in the field, rather than by being convinced by scientifically tested evidence, is definitely dangerous to anyone’s actually scientific knowledge. Keep up the great work. p.s. I really enjoyed your book.
What you wrote is really funny (and sad at the same time) because you now believe other side "physics luminaries", namely her, still. And you do it under video that demonstrated her usual bashing of accelerators and "pretty math" is comically and utterly wrong, Dirac discovered anti-matter because math just worked. Gee, maybe Sabine TOO is just "still human"?
@@KuK137 Such passion could be commendable in any other field of human endeavour but not that of science. And if Character Assassination is all you have to offer in this conversation then you too are just human and probably should just stick to the sidelines.
@@PaulGreeve : I love her show and her style, but haven’t read her book. Yet, I don’t agree with her entirely. Taking a page from your own book, so to speak, I disagree in principle that the mere investigation of what sets the values of anti-matter versus baryonic matter is valueless. Whether we call it a, “problem,” or not is merely word play, after all? It’s an interesting mystery. Dirac only predicted that there would be such a thing as, “anti-matter,” by doing math and he was later proven correct, though he never suggested he knew what the amount would be. So far, so cleared up, and thank you to Sabine for that. Yet, to just take the, “Shut up and calculate,” attitude thereafter and to suggest that it’s time wasting to delve deeper into that mystery is wrong headed in my view. I am not expert enough to comment on whether the vast sums spent on colliders is worth it or not, or if the science is valid when it comes to this question in particular, but there is an obvious question worthy of investigation by science isn’t there? If the amounts of anti-matter and matter were 1 to 1 equal, there would be no universe in which we could ponder the question at all. So, isn’t it natural to wonder what caused that imbalance? It was by pondering such questions that Einstein came up with his ideas, for which later scientists like Arthur Eddington dreamt up experiments that could prove him right. Either, there was an equal amount of both matter types and there was something that caused them to avoid direct contact in the earliest moments of the universe’s existence, or there were different amounts to start with? Either way, how is trying to discover which is the case a waste of any scientist’s time? Knowing what conditions set these values could change our understanding of physics altogether? I think it’s a slippery slight of hand to try to invalidate the question, just because you would rather spend money an resources differently. She admits herself that it would be, “wonderful to know the answer.” But, then just goes on to say there is no way to figure it out. I think she’s wrong about that, and about the ingenuity of science to come up with ways of interrogating these questions. She reminds me of Hoyle dismissing the Big Bang theory whilst coining the expression, refuting the very basis of the science out of a personal dislike, rather than for a scientific reason. To speak in absolutes, “There is no science in existence today equipped to investigate the question,” (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what she said) is a bonkers thing to say, like standing in a forest and saying, “There’s nothing here from which we could build a house,” when a thousand carpenters would beg to differ. Don’t get me wrong. I love her show, and she’s usually right on the money. But she has an emotive attitude that sometimes gets the better of her, which a lot of people miss because of her cool Germanic style. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Of course it’s an intriguing question, from which the whole of physics would benefit by the answer! Maybe the debate should be about, “how,: it is investigated, not, “if,” it should be? What do you think? ✌️
@@KuK137 : What is actually, “sad,” here is the fact that you have destroyed your own argument by predicating it upon assumptions and then spurting out a personal point of view in a hostile, bickering tone, rather than being adult enough to interrogate the questions from a grownup’s perspective. Show us on the dolly where Sabine hurt you, son? Can’t you keep your emotions in check? At least long enough to have a meaningful discussion? . . .
@@ashroskell Gah. How to answer? I only completed half a degree in Science many years ago. Most of my current physics ‘knowledge’ comes from popular books, the web and UA-cam videos, so I’m not really qualified in any capacity to answer you with any certainty, though I wish it was otherwise. But this is why I like Sabine’s views because she causes me to reassess my current understanding. That being said I don’t think she has all the answers either. Further, I know how hard it is to convert thinking into words, both spoken and written and to do this in another language must be even harder, as Sabine has to, so her message could be getting lost in the translation for some of us. So about that answer (my personal musings): I too would hope that in time we can discover answers to all the whys of the physical universe. But right now it seems that for the last few decades what at first a flood of new fundamental physics discoveries has slowed to a trickle. With funding becoming scarce, the Physics community is going to have to make some hard decisions on where next to spend their limited time and money. Further, the use of ‘beauty’ and ‘symmetry’ to act as a guide to developing the next theories that lead to real world discoveries (such as Dirac and antimatter) have yet to bear fruit. The hope that a bigger particle collider will solve this drought in new discoveries, is an expensive gamble at best, because currently (to my knowledge) there is no solid predictions left that such a device would be hunting for (outside of Super Symmetry and String Theory - and these provide no targeted energy levels to guarantee success). It seams to me that particle physics is coming to a crossroad and that doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results, might not be the best way to determine the best way forward. Anyway, these are just my unqualified thoughts, which Sabine has helped me to develop over the course of watching her videos and from her considering her arguments as set it in her book. Because prior to discovering her channel, I just believed that fundament physics has everything in hand. Now I hope I have a more balance and realistic understanding of the issues facing fundamental physics at this time.
I love your channel.Much of the specific content is incomprehensible to me, but I love hearing your argumentation. I reasoned that somehow there was more matter than anti-matter but usually I enjoy finding the limits to my knowledge, ability to follow an argument and encountering the moment where I have to admit that I am clueless (usually very near the start!).
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
My understanding is that Observations show that high energy particle creation from collisons is balanced between matter and anti-matter. Even if the universe starts off with initial unbalanced ratio the churn of particle creation and destruction should errase the initial condition and overwrite it with the ratio of particle creation, which we observationally belive to be equal, thus the paradox of the universe having either matter OR antimatter in it. The search for an asymetry in the creation of particles is thus a way out because it creates a durable imbalance. What I think is neglected here is the possibility for the univese to be balanced without self anialation, because anialation is local. If a region randomly becomes richer in one type then it could persist and form it's own structures seperatly from other regions, once the particle creation churn and mass exchange between regions slows to negligable levels. If their is large scale anti-matter structure in the Universe it's got to be a huge scales, galactic clusters, voids etc.
She doesn’t understand the mystery. The mystery arises because matter has only ever been observed to be created in particle/anti-particle pairs. So all matter that didn’t initially annihilate should be comprised of 1/2 matter and 1/2 antimatter. Her method of thinking of just saying “there must have just been more matter” doesn’t solve the mystery. To solve the mystery, we either need to find a way that matter can be created without creating the same mass of antimatter, to find an amount of antimatter that tells us that the “missing” antimatter might be out there and just separated from matter by space, or to find a way that antimatter can be annihilated without interacting with its matter counterpart. It isn’t a very hard concept to understand, so I don’t see why she is struggling with it so much. Yes, the bias could be 1.0000001% towards matter to explain our universe, but that doesn’t solve the mystery. It just shifts the mystery to “what causes that tiny bias, and how is such a bias possible?”
I believe the point is that the question (say) "why is the antimatter ratio 1.whatever?" is entirely valid, but "why is the ratio not 1" sort of obscures the question "why should the ratio be 1 in the first place?" Which part of what theory predicts that? (rhetorical...)
Can one apply the anthropomorphic principle? If it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to talk about it? Or is it possible that the assumption matter and antimatter would exactly annihilate faulty because the distribution of matter and antimatter was lumpy initially and so there are beings in other galaxies wondering why the entire universe is made of antimatter?
@@FredPlanatia A kinetic theory of gravity would suppose gravity is the epiphenomenon of matter traveling in the same direction - with the added bonus that mass would be indistinct from inertia exactly as Newton predicted. It would use anti-matter instead of dark matter which is what the current theory of gravity uses.
Real cool. A delight to follow the description of the essentials of Dirac's equations. And the description of how some people try to get their projects funded...;)
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
So, the the universe immediately after the big bang already contained all of its baryonic matter? Is that a fact? That quarks existed immediately at the big bang? Because if not, if quarks were created, they were created in pairs of quark antiquark, and so the baryonic number must be exactly 0.
The reason, as I understand it, why physicists believe there should have been an equal amount of matter to antimatter in the early universe is that they are assuming an initial condition where the universe consists entirely of photons. If that were the case, then one does indeed need to come up with some explanation why matter-antimatter particle pair production did not produce both in perfectly equal amounts. Of course, assumptions are not fact, but it seems justification enough to me why we would want to build experiments looking for matter-antimatter asymmetries.
When an observed number is within that margin of a famous number, I kinda understand the tendency to investigate if they are not equal in reality. I mean, you could make a statistical analysis of all the numbers we use and find a likelyhood that two numbers being this close together is not statistically significant, and in this case I think you would have to conclude that there may be something there.
When you talk about ratio, one is not a "famous number"... It's simply the equality... No "magic" to be around 1 with a ratio... You DO realize this I hope ? One is a BORING ratio result.
@@shayneoneill1506 I think the main point is that Dirac’s equation doesn’t require that antimatter and matter exists in equal amounts. Dirac’s equations simply argue that antimatter exists. Are you saying she is wrong about that point?
Math unfortunately can not measure everything. I would like to see more basic research on neutrinos and antimatter. In particular I think there should be research into possible interactions between neutrinos and antimatter. If there is a symmetry violation discovered between positrons and neutrinos it could give insight into the problem.
@@גבריאל-ח3י I agree math can’t measure everything. I also don’t think that current scientific frameworks account for all of reality. However, I think she is correct here because her claim is really modest. Her claim is simply that Dirac’s equations don’t require a mystery concerning anti matter. It seems there she is correct.
New research has indicated that matter and antimatter are not actually identical with only the charge being opposite. I forgot the specifics, but it has to do with CPT parity. What are your thoughts on the matter?
This was really helpful for answering, or at least partially answering my question of how we know if something is made of matter or antimatter by looking at it through a telescope of some kind.
Cern can make antiprotons at a facility called the alpha project. The apparatus collides protons at nearly the speed of light into an iridium target. The -ve antiprotons are anillated if they come into contact +ve protons producing energy. The Sun has extremely high pressure, and energies that might also be able to produce antiprotons? If so antiprotons would be anillated by interacting with protons, and this would release the energy keeping the Sun burning. The Sun is positively charged in relation to the earth -ve electrical charge. So the Sun would try to hold on to -ve antiprotons produced anillating them almost instantaneously. This energy would also contribute to the sun's thermal temperature. The +ve Sun also repels the +ve protons in the form of the solar wind which are attracted to to the earth's relative -ve potential. This could be the reson we do not see antimatter it is keep in stars in the form of energy. (E = MC SQUARED ). This could explain the missing antimatter?
Question: I’ve heard that virtual particles always pop into existence in a matter-anti matter pair and then annihilate, except when it happens at the event horizon of a black hole where one of the particles gets captured and the other doesn’t, which causes Hawking radiation. Isn’t that a reason to think the ration should have been 1:1 in the early universe? Since that’s we the ratio we see for virtual particles now?
If we're accepting that quantum processes involved true randomness, why would we be surprised that these same processes create slightly different numbers of particles and anti particles?
Because they're random but evenly distributed. So for example an Electron isn't biased to one side of an atom constantly. You don't detect it 99.99999% of the time on one side and the rest on the other. You detect it about half the time on each side.
@@petersmythe6462 That is true. But to have this even ratio you have to do many observations on the electron. We can do only one observation on the universe so it should be unsurprising to find it in a random particular state. Well you may say the universe is not a quantum object like an electron, but it should have been one if the Big Bang Theory is correct.
@@alpyre Yes, but an even better response is simply to note that almost no uniform random process is ever actually observed perfectly uniform unless by incredible fluke. Chances are overwhelming we would naturally get a small excess, the type of particle in the tiny excess is what we'd call "matter," but that's completely arbitrary, if we were made of positrons and anti-baryons we'd call them the "matter" and the electrons etc "anti-matter." Follow this up with 10^80 baryons is indeed a tiny excess of say an initial 10^81 mc^2 worth of them all. That's the robust response to all this hooey.
Symmetry is generally conserved and its led to the discoveries of new particles. So when symmetry is broken, it's really strange. Another way of looking at this "problem" is that the universe is chiral and there's no explanation for it. Why would the universe be left handed instead of right handed, or vice versa? Randomness isn't a good explanation for symmetry breaking when symmetry has been a cornerstone of physics and chemistry for so long. The universe conserves symmetry, which means you cannot isolate electric charges and color charges. You cannot have a jar of all positively charges ions. The vacuum energy of space will create a balance of charge before you succeed. Symmetry of + and - charge is always conserved and that creates an electrically neutral solar system. Color charge must always add to white, this symmetry cannot be violated. The keyword is symmetry and uncertainty principle doesn't apply to symmetry. Symmetry is either conserved or it isn't. We either have a universe of only negative or only positive charges, or we have a universe with a balance of charges. The electric force is either symmetrical or it isn't. Thus far, the discoveries leading to the creation of the standard model came from physicists who assumed the forces of the universe were symmetric. Under these assumptions you get various kinds of particles whose charges balance to zero or balance to white, and experimentally we find that these particles really do exist. Some sets of symmetries may be more conserved than others. There are 8 types of electrons based on the allowed symmetries. Experimentally we can confer their existence through the decay process of high energy collisions. So a positron CAN exist because if you try to break the symmetry of the electric force, the quantum fields will create a balance by creating a positron that instantly attracts an electron and becomes a photon. For some reason all of the electrons that do exist are not combining with positrons, but all positrons that are created are instantly combined with electrons. If we had the ability to create as many positrons as the mass of the earth, the earth would turn to light. But when we have an earth made of electrons, there inverse does not happen. Symmetry was somehow violated early in the universe if not "before". We should also consider that symmetry might mean something completely different at extremely high energies when all the forces were unified. The decoupling of the fundamental forces must have induced an asymmetry that lasted no longer than the lifetime of the decoupling event. After decoupling, symmetry of fundamental forces solidified, and the matter and anti-matter annihilated according to their symmetry. But because that decoupling period allowed for symmetry violations, more matter than anti-matter formed. So, symmetry is never violated except in the early universe. We observe the results of an asymettric early universe evolving into a fully symetric universe as the apparent lack of anti-matter.
In his later years, Dirac lived in Tallahassee, Florida, USA. He occasionally gave public lectures at Florida State University. I went to one probably very early 1980s. I didn't understand anything. I seem to be in good company: Albert Einstein (yes, that guy again) wrote of Dirac, "I have trouble with Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful." In another letter concerning the Compton effect he wrote, "I don't understand Dirac at all." •Sabine, you I understand. And that's a good thing. Thank you. 2021-12-07
Of all the physicists I have heard speak on various topics on youtube I have never heard anybody who will just look you in the face and separate what is factual and reliable physics from BS speculation and empty theorizing resting on nothing but flimsy wishful dreaming. She just doesn't beat around the bush. She hates BS and she just calls it like she sees it. She is amazing!
Careful there, she is just saying her opinion on a field that is not hers, so you only get to see what she paints. What someone from the area would say about it?
Yet this asymmetry is quite odd…I mean, If you just have light with enough energy, you always get a matter-antimatter-pair, right? So a symmetric amount of both is somewhat reasonably. On the other hand: If all the matter he have today is left from an initial amount, it does not matter if we can create matter-antimatter-pairs, that will eventually annihilate soon.
I was taught that the reason for a "starting ratio" of exactly 1, between matter and antimatter bosons, was that the starting condition astrophysicists were going with for the big bang was for there to be no bosons at all, just a whole lot of energy packed into a very small space, and we can observe in particle colliders that when you put enough energy into a small enough space, sometimes that energy turns into bosons, but always in a symmetrical way (for example, if a collider makes exactly one positron, then it must necessarily also make exactly one electron). That reasoning still seems to hold up to me, and this video didn't address it (indeed, Sabine strongly implies she's never heard it before, but I'd never before heard the alternate version presented here, despite having encountered the version I describe in many sources, so apparently there's a severe disconnect somewhere in the scientific education and propagation of knowledge on the matter.) I was also told, more than a decade ago, that the observations that would have revealed antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies, if there were any in the observable universe, had already been done far too thoroughly to reasonably uphold the idea that we just hadn't looked in the right spot yet.
@@theeiszeitmann928 That still doesn't obliviate the need for an explanation as to how it came to be something other than 1, nor for an explanation of what's incorrect about the aforementioned reasoning for expecting it to be 1.
as i have understood it, all the particles have to come from somewhere, the earliest state of universe had energy in a more “pure”/denser/hotter state than what particles allow. and the only way we know particles are created is in matter anti-matter pairs. so the problem is really trying to find ways particles can be created independently from their anti-particles. i would really appreciate it if you could point out the flaw in this, as i take it i have misunderstood something !
It's easy enough to write down theories that violate matter-antimatter symmetry. Particle physicists just don't like those. It's the same problem as picking an initial value though because we have no other evidence for the creation that you refer to, if it happened. So why deliberately pick a number that does not describe what we observe?
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm still not sure I understand. I thought that according to e=mc2, there had to be equal amounts of matter particles created as the big bang cooled down from pure energy...
@@smcic That is only half of the answer E=mc² directly does not need matter-antimatter pairs. Just with E=mc² you can have only matter or only antimatter as you want, but then there is CPT symmetry as a fundamental basis of all quantum theories and those combined then obey the equality of matter and antimatter production and create the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.
Sabine, I've been thinking... (Yes, dangerous thing, I know 😬) If there was a difference between matter and antimatter in the beginning of the universe, wouldn't it suggest there should be the same difference in the creation of virtual particles in the vacuum? I mean... Some times it should generate only a matter particles, or maybe 2 matter particles and 1 antimatter particle. In this case, the mass of the universe should grow (and, yes, thermodynamics would be broken!)... So... I don't really know, but there should be something wrong. 😬 Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thermodynamics wouldn't technically be broken, the universe would just *not* be a closed system (as the observable universe isn't). As for the "virtual particle" thing, well... Virtual particles are "virtual" for a reason. They are an useful tool for certain calculations, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually exist (they probably don't). You can model gravity (and most forces, for that matter) using springs, that doesn't mean that gravity is made out of springs
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
@@hyperduality2838 Yeap. But, still, if that's all true the universe shouldn't exist. There should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter and... BOOM. Everything is gone. But here we are. 😬
@@MCsCreations Something is dual to nothing. Positive infinity is dual to negative infinity. The infinite future is connected/identified with the infinite past antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3) -- topology. Retro-causality or anti-particles would therefore be anti-entropy or syntropy flowing backwards in time from the future. The arrow of time (entropy) would be opposite or dual for syntropic processes! Thinking is a syntropic process so your mind is creating anti-particles (reflections or mirrors) of ordinary particles. Your mind is a mirror or dual to the empirical world of physics. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. The mind/soul is dual according to Descartes.
@@MCsCreations Reflections preserve perpendicularity (duality) in hyperbolic geometry. Reflections or null vectors, light rays conserve duality -- photons are pure energy. Watch the following series of videos about universal hyperbolic geometry:- ua-cam.com/video/EvP8VtyhzXs/v-deo.html Your mind is a reflection or mirror of the real world. Inside is dual to outside. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions (measurements) into conceptions -- thinking. Thinking or having thoughts is a syntropic process, you are building models or predictions of the external world. Duality (energy) creates reality!
Can you make a video on Strangelets? What is your view on this theoretical particle? Shouldn’t everything be or will be strange matter if it converts everything it touches into strange matter? Is this potentially Dark Matter?
Due to oversight, the amount of antimatter was stored as a float16 instead of float32 as the patch to increase the accuracy was only applied to normal matter. Such high numbers were never tested during development, as the clients decision to scale universe up 10^6 times was made very late in the planned production cycle.
Maybe the universe looks like a big magnetic field. Maybe we live in the "North" part of the field where matter is more likely to occur, and there's a whole other "South" part, which apparently we can't see, where anti-matter is more likely to occur. Thanks for the great explanation!
@@nenhard Structures larger than the observable universe are not necessarily a problem. For example, according to the current astronomical consensus, a observer late in the stellar era would see one big galaxy and empty space extending beyond that for trillions of light years. In other words, the expansion of the universe will cause the largest scale structures to expand beyond the cosmological event horizon. (I.e. the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so objects are moving out of view.) The universe only looks homogenous because the largest scale structures have not yet been stretched passed the cosmological event horizon. There is no way of knowing if there is some sort of large scale structure beyond scale the observable universe.
I thought that when the universe popped into existence at the Big Bang, there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, based on conservation principals, so the question about why there's more matter is not a pseudo-question, it's pretty fundamental. Physics should explain the initial conditions, not just accept them.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
I'm already eager for the day Sabine will talk about what ants think about anti-matter. It's a shame their opinions are so readily dismissed, and generally just completely neglected, within the physics community.
My understanding was that the motivation to assume an eqaul amount as an initial condition cames from the observation how anti matter production happens in "practice" via pair production. It suggest that everytime antimatter produced, equal amount of matter is produced as well. So as far as I know we have no mechanism which would break this symmetry, and yield just matter or anti matter, yet the universe seems assymetric in this way, hence the mystery.
Equality implies duality. Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic. Annihilation is dual to creation, constructors are dual to destructors. "Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
Thank you for being a such a thorough and understandable teacher on these matters. Since the universe basically ballooned out from its origin; there need not be a huge amount of interaction across the vastness of space. Thus, local preferences for one type of matter or the other may be viable. And should there be areas lacking matter even more so than normal between these locals, then that may help explain that situation. Of course, present energy releases from the stars making matter-antimatter energy must be too small to explain dark energy, I dare say. In that realm I keep wondering if it is because this universe is meeting "ancient" gravity from universes beyond ours. Though matter of this universe that has ballooned out farther from what we can now note would be so "red-shifted" that that effect would likely be much less. Yet, since anything moving toward a gravity source would note it as being stronger in its force than what was notably produced locally by it; and when moving away from a source, again less. Like the blue and red-shift affect has upon light.
I don't think you understand that the expanding universe isn't all the stuff moving out from a point to occupy more space, like an explosion. It is space itself that is getting scaled bigger. It's not "moving towards" anything.
Sorry to say this, but I am afraid the baryon asymmetry problem IS a REAL problem (=demands justification in our current theoretical framework) and it is somewhat similar to the time symmetry of the (microscopic) fundamental equations of physics and emergence of the arrow of time somehow breaking of that time-reversal symmetry at the system level. The problem is that the Standard Model and its equations are neutral or symmetric with respect to matter/antimatter nature of particles (As a reminder, matter and antimatter are considered different types of oscillation and excitations in the same fundamental complex-valued field of nature in QFT. Having complex components [=two degrees of freedom for field value] is a requirement for having these two kinds of oscillations [or excitations] in a quantum field and for the same reason, real valued fields [like photon field] have only one kind of excitation in them: The usual photons which we know and are their own anti-particles). And so it becomes a reasonable question to ask that: If your most fundamental laws are exactly symmetric with respect to whether you are dealing with matter or antimatter excitations, where did this baryon asymmetry that we observe in universe came from? Where is all the antimatter. Particularly, what is the mechanism for this specific number 1000000001/1000000000? So as you see, this is a very real and a very active problem is particle physics (and cosmology). And playing with initial conditions cannot and should not make a problem of this sort go away.
The question "Why is there more matter than antimatter" is the same questions as "Why is the fine structure constant ~1/137?" The matter/antimatter ratio and the fine structure constant are inital conditions of our universe. You would need a theory that explains what happend before the Big Bang (which means a theory of everything, if that is even possible) to solve these questions.
Sabine is arguing that you can’t solve this problem with the current framework because currently all anyone is effectively doing is messing around with the initial conditions.
@@TheCreativeKruemel I think Sabine is trying to claim that this question is in that category in which case her argument makes sense but I’m not convinced. There definitely could be a future theoretical framework that uncovers some asymmetry and explains the matter anti matter problem. I have much less hope if any that the fine structure constant or electronic charge values could be predicted theoretically. And if you agree that it’s possible that a future theoretical framework is more likely to explain matter anti matter asymmetry than most of the other standard model constants then it really isn’t a pseudo problem at all.
@@TheArtiKle “Physicists make a living solving problems so they have an incentive to create problems where there aren’t any” I think Sabines view is much more extreme. It’s not “you can’t solve this problem with…” She’s saying there literally isn’t a problem at all.
Well, yeah. Seeking explanations for things we don't understand is what scientists do. If we had asked "where did the sun come from" and stopped at "that's an initial condition, we can't explain it" astronomy would be in a sorry state.
Err. yeah but the point is: what is so fantastic that a RATIO is not one ?? Where is the mystery ? In fact EVERYWHERE we check ratios and they're not "one"... So why THIS ratio would be different ? You can check ANY ratio like why Dogs Count/Cats count is not one... You MUST spend expensive experience because HEY, if we can't understand why there's not symmetry between cats and dogs, we'll never understand "where did the sun come from"... BTW... So YOU know where did the sun came from ? I'm curious, please explain with maps and charts... It must be hilarious.
I have trouble understanding this as well. It’s as though Sabine has _some_ method she uses to estimate the relative worthiness of different research-but it’s not discussed explicitly (here at least), and all the hot takes only hold if one accepts that same underlying framework. I think she had a video on naturalness-and indeed a whole book that sounds like she’d elaborate on this subject. I probably need to read her book to get a more precise understanding of how she ranks research worthiness when subject to limited resources.
"which is a polite way of saying 'i think it's nonsense'". i do try and keep up with your vids, which are obviously way over my head, but the cutting one-liners are always excellent. i'm still chuckling about the daily mirror readers from a year or so ago. keep up the great work!
And what if the initial polarity at the big bang was just a coin toss and (almost) no antimatter was created and then annihilated in the first place. Is this version of events even possible?
@Varun I need a good dumbed down version in video form because I'm not capable of understanding entirely. My understanding was that our view of an electron is that it moves forward in time faster than anything else because of how little Mass it has
My hypothesis is that there are other universes outside our local bubble. They are affecting or aeffected our universe in some way at least in the beginning. At little bit of gravitational wave or a couple of extra particles or radiation from somewhere else would make all the difference.
@@santicruz4012 We can't...Not really. We can only extrapolate. Just like we could be certain there must be other suns, planets, galaxies out there. We can be fairly reasonable in saying there are other univeses out there.
As I understood from other popular science channels, initial energy of universe was converted to mass. This should come in equal parts of matter and antimatter (as you described in 4:25). What am I missing?
It should, she has no idea what she is talking about. Following her line of thinking, Einstein's work on fixing Newtons laws was worthless, because Newton just works if you ignore all irregularities (like Baryon Anomaly) hand-waving them away as 'assumptions'...
The "initial energy of the universe was converted to mass" argument assumes two things: (1) that the baryon number of the universe was zero at the beginning of the universe, and (2) that this number was preserved. The problem is that we have NO physical theories that work with the very early universe (prior to 10^-43 seconds) - no form of relativity or quantum mechanics functions properly in this regime. In particular, we have no theoretical basis to believe either assumption (1) or (2), aside from the fact that they feel elegant. There are plenty of other known cases of symmetry-breaking in the (not quite as) early universe - such as the electroweak interaction splitting up - so who's to say this shouldn't occur for the baryon number as well once you go hot and dense enough?
@@KuK137 there's a pretty huge difference between changing the differential equations and changing the initial conditions. Given the same initial conditions, Einstein's equations predict what comes next more accurately than Newton's - that's plenty of evidence that makes it more useful. To be able to do something comparable for the matter/antimatter distinction, we would need to boot up a new universe and predict ahead of time which way the balance will swing.
Actually this is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding or at least very simplified and short version. Nobody knows what was the "initial" energy, one candidate is hypothetical inflatron field, which is assumed to have driven the initial inflationary expansion of the universe and condensed in to elementary particles. But inflatron field is hypothetical and there is no good theory what it should be. There is something else what makes some to wonder why there is matter antimatter asymmetry, standard model predicts that matter and antimatter is always created in pairs and this was quite recently confirmed in the Brookhaven experiments. From a gamma radiation pairs of electron and positron were created. Always in pairs. So our best theory makes prediction which is so far confirmed, but still the universe doesn't care. Was it just a tiny quantum fluctuation which was rapidly expanded by inflation or there is something else beyond standard model? Sabine could have done better explanatory video instead of bashing.
Here's a simple experiment for anyone who gets confused about the apparent lack of antimatter: 1. Take two colors of skittles or whatever you have in equal amounts. 2. Throw all of it on the floor. 3. Go through them and find all different colored ones that are touching. 4.Remove the pairs and move others nearby one inch away from the pair. 5. Repeat until moving the skittles does not make any new opposite color pairs. You will end up with the two colors clearly separated. Now note that simulating gravity by making nearby skittles form pairs will just make the gaps between colors wider as attracting the other color will remove the attraction and push rest of them further apart.
I've always considered the idea of the 2 parallel universes to solve very neatly the "where's the anti-matter?" problem. I.e. at the big-bang 2 universes were created, one made mostly of matter, the other made up mostly of anti-matter. Both have their time vectors aligned in the same direction, but pointing in opposite directions - so rather than "where" is the anti-matter, the question should be "when", because it's before us in time and travelling further and further behind in time. This aligns neatly with the idea of considering anti-matter as matter with the time reversed, literally matter traveling backwards in time
I've had that thought also. Sabine doesn't go into it in this video, but matter and antimatter don't quite follow the same physical laws (i.e. C invariance doesn't exist). Nor do the same physical laws hold in a mirror image universe made of antimatter (CP invariance). But a mirror image antimatter universe running backward in time (CPT invariance) does have to obey the same physical laws (or all of our understanding of particle physics completely falls apart). CPT = charge/parity/time So in one time path from the Big Bang singularity (the one we're on) matter is slightly preferred, but on the other (backwards in time from our perspective, but forwards to our antimatter counterparts) antimatter would be slightly preferred.
I'm not sure I understand that question because energy is conserved in both processes. Maybe this helps: In a matter-anti-matter annihilation energy is converted into other particles that are mostly elementary (though some of them may form small bound states). The same happens of course in nuclear fission, but in nuclear fission you retain big chunks which are two smaller nuclei. You don't just get elementary particles. So in some sense you could say that in nuclear fission more energy is retained in the remaining mass.
Are you asking about the amount of energy produced, or the type of energy produced? Pound for pound, annihilation is more efficient at producing high energy photons than fission or fusion are.
@@SabineHossenfelder He has a good pedagogical point totally ignored in textbooks or wrongly presented as if E=mc^2 that is true only for p(momentum)=0 for not a "particle" but a system of sth!!!! Practically it works in the laboratory (labs' speed=0 for sure); mass is not additive in relativity theory:the system's mass exceeds the sum of its constituents (well...a "wave" does not have a mass(like an object, it transports only energy; wave/field does not move!!! Only (a)quanta oscillate in the field). (Electromgt) field has a (theoretical)mass that is invariant, but energy E-not from: (E^2 -(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2 (u know or not the majority of textbooks fool poor students on it because authors do not understand its own subject)
a good point arising from textbooks BS explanations also by R.Feynman. I responded below to Rev.S with details; shortly: E=mc^2 is valid only for v,p(momentum)=0,i.e. for the reference system at rest from the universal equation, called 4-momentum: E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2;i.e. m(mass) is invariant but E(energy not!)>Here,this fission reaction happens not In a pure empty space-time but in nucleus surroundings- by analogy with maths: to understand the right use of codomain (of function Y) one cannot forget the boundaries of the domain( every element x of the set X where f(x)=y)
Annihilation is dual to creation, constructors are dual to destructors. "Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological. Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman. The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein. Causality is dual to retro-causality. Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching. "You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda. Duality (energy) creates reality.
I always thought, that problem with asymmetry is related to fact that on the beginning (big bang) there was no matter at all and it was created from energy. All process that can create mater from energy creates the same amount of m and am. And that's a problem. Where my understanding is wrong?
"Energy" isn't something in and by itself, it's a property of something. What is it a property of? And how does that thing it's a property of create matter and anti-matter? How can you know if the amount of matter and anti-matter we see today is the only piece of data you have?
@@SabineHossenfelder With due respect Sabine, I think this is a valid question to ask. Obviously the initial conditions can only be inferred from the evidence but I think the big question is what led to the imbalance to begin with, given that we know of no process that can create more matter than antimatter. Unless your hypothesis is that the matter was never created to begin with and had already existed (in the "initial condition") Energy is a really tricky topic, it would be interesting to see a video about it from you!
@@KalebPeters99 : Let's assume equal numbers of electrons & positrons were initially created, equal numbers of protons & antiprotons, etc. It's well known that protons can "beta decay" to produce positrons (and neutrons & electron neutrinos). (A hypothetical phenomenon, "proton decay," might also cause the proton's positive charge to wind up in a positron.) Similarly, antiprotons can "beta decay" so their negative charge winds up in electrons. Under high energy conditions like during the early universe, the reverse interactions can also be expected, in which the positive charge of a positron can wind up in a proton, or the negative charge of an electron can wind up in an antiproton. I see no reason to expect these random processes would balance exactly equally... it could quickly produce an excess of protons & electrons. Since protons don't annihilate with electrons, this seems like a possible reason why the universe wouldn't necessarily completely annihilate despite beginning with exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
Just because we couldn’t explain how bees fly doesn’t mean we predicted that bees can’t fly. Seems like the same misconception happens with anti-matter.
Same with bumble bees. They are not supposed to fly but they do. I read that it was found out in mid 90-2000 that on their wings small vertices are created due to the irregullarities on the wings. These small vertices practically suck up the bee. Same concept with a golf ball. Why it flies further away than a regular smooth ball?
It's easy to imagine a headline describing it that way though. "Bees Aren't Supposed to be Able To Fly and That's a Problem". It's just the obnoxious, clickbaity way science journalists write these days.
Lacking creativity leads to ... but I better stop here.You are completely right. Same happened to iron in spinach in 20's. A comma typoed lead to Popeye. Lol.
Dear Sabine, thank you very much for that nice, simple argument! I am not a particle physisist but, so far, I understood from lectures that in the early universe there might have been just a unified theory and particles formed by cooling and symmetry breaking which then would result in an equal amount of matter and anti- matter. So, if this is kind of correctly described, my question is: Would you conclude from observation that the matter- antimatter assymetry goes back to kind of assymetric initial condition in unified theory, or would you conclude that the current explanation based on symmetry breaking is wrong. If I would have no assymetric initial condition in unified theory, then the explanation of existence of our world would need explanation by effects happening in the cooling phase when symmetry breaking takes place. Frozen- in flucuations could explain the small deviations from 1. So far the very qualitative description of what I understood from state of research - but may be a have a completely wrong model in mind - hope it is worth your time to comment on this?! Best regards Wolfgang
"If your theory doesn't agree with observation, or experiment, it's wrong. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I think it's not so black&white. Einstein's General Relativity agree with 99.9% of observations, and and fails to explain 0.1%. So is it wrong, or right?
@@ZeeThird I don't think he, or anyone else; would suggest that a theory MUST be 100% perfect and accurate in all instances; I think he was using it as a general rule of thumb..
Funnily enough, Copernicus, Dirac, Einstein, Mendeleev, Szilard, Mendel, Darwin, Galileo, Pasteur, and ton of others didn't listen to this nonsense and somehow their pretty theories, not observations or experiments of the time, were right...
@@KuK137 You are confusing "interpretation" with "Observation". Most of the people you mention derived their theories directly from their observations.
There is a plausible reason to expect the initial matter-antimatter ratio to be one: all matter was created at or after the big bang through pair production. In fact, the matter-antimatter ratio might really be one. Electrons (and neutrinos) might be antimatter, and protons and neutrons (ie. quarks) might be matter. The asymmetry now becomes an asymmetry in the nucleon and antinucleon (or quark and antiquark) decay rates. In any case, astrophysicists, particle physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. would all like to find out what happened at the big bang. Do we really wish to denigrate the understanding of nature? "... it isn't entirely impossible that big chunks of antimatter float around somewhere in the universe." No, not entirely impossible. But it would have to be where we wouldn't observe particle annihilation with interstellar or intergalactic matter. Yes, you point out something like that near the end -- or that such annihilation might have been seen. Please be more accurate about colleagues' reactions to Dirac's prediction. It wasn't unanimous dismissal. You might also be more accurate about the history leading to Dirac's prediction.
@Cancer McAids Nothing in principle says which is the particle and which is the antiparticle. Particles and antiparticles have opposite charges. The positron could be the particle and the electron the antiparticle.
Because everything else is symmetric so far and anything that appears non symmetrical, just has a more fundamental underlying line of symmetry drawn in a different place.
@@jaredf6205 that's pretty arbitrary. And everything really isn't. I think it's more of a selective perception and anthropocentrism then a fundamental law.
@@ilejovcevski79 That's because you don't understand what dark matter is, or isn't. Dark matter is the placeholder name for the phenomenon (yet to be discovered) that causes a very real and readily observed discrepancy between the speed of rotation of galaxies and their observed mass. It's actually impossible for dark matter to be bogus -- not knowing what it is doesn't change that.
I looked up the book that's cited as reference for the Wikipedia article on "Baryon asymmetry", and it just states "A natural assumption is that the universe was neutral with respect to all conserved charges, including baryon number." There's no derivation, no argument. There really seems to be a serious "groupthink" problem in the systems of validation and communication of scientific knowledge. Thank you Sabine for doing your part!
I don't know if it's settled science/physics yet re: gravitational force between matter and antimatter. Matter-Matter attracts gravitationally. I assume Anti-Matter-Anti-Matter attracts gravitationally But perhaps Matter Antimatter repel gravitationally (but attract electrically/magnetically where applicable) If so, then very early in our Universe life cycle, Matter and AntiMatter would have separated due to gravitational repulsion Another idea I've read is that the "time arrow" of anti-matter is opposite that of normal matter. Given that one interpretation of Gravity is that Time "Causes" the gravitational force as mass moves through spacetime worldlines due to time dilation, it would follow that mass with an opposite time vector should appear to repel mass with "normal" (opposing) time vector Hence, perhaps most Anti Matter exists in the same space as our Matter but with an opposite time vector/phase/etc, similar to time-reversed matter/objects in Tenet, but not normally visible to us A "time arrow" or "time cone" that is opposite ours doesn't imply that anti-matter there "moves backwards" in its local spacetime, ie if you went to an AntiMatter Universe (Like Kirk/Lazarus in the Alternative Factor) time would appear to run normally for you, like the time reversed people in Tenet. The main result is that it would not be normally visible to us within our "time vector" vs Tenet's interpretation that time reversed mass is visible to non-time reversed perception. If not normally "visible" due to being out of "time phase" with our matter and normal senses, perhaps the bulk of Anti-Matter is actually the Dark Matter we seek. That is, there may exist a complete Anti Matter Universe coincident spatially with ours but not necessarily with the same matter/mass (planets/galaxies, etc) placements/distribution, normally not interacting due to time-vector and/or gravitational vector difference, but it's Mass affecting our Matter
Without the misinterpretation of Dirac's therory implying a mechanism to balance matter / anti matter creation, the problem is surely just statistics. Toss a coin as many times as there were particles created. While the most likely specific outcome is 50/50, the actual chance of that is miniscule when compared to the total of every other outcome. 2 coins: 50/50 - > 0.5 everything else - > 0.5 4 coins: 50/50 - > 0.375 everything else - > 0.625 100 coins: 50/50 - > 0.08 everything else - > 0.92 Fhe real fun part is when we discover a way to determine which polarity is matter and which is anti matter, similar to the oopsie when "they" decided that electrical charge carriers were positively charged.....
This bit about whether the ratio of matter to anti-matter was one or a value slightly larger, puts me in mind of both the teological argument for the existence of God and the anthropic principle. The teological argument is that the intricacy of the universe necessitates its creation by an intelligent being, to which the obvious retort is “compared to what other universe?” While the teological argument is easily logically dismissed, its popularity and persistence does say something significant, I think, about human psychology, and I’ve had a particular theory to account for that, which I won’t rehearse here, for several decades. The anthropic principle attempts to explain why physical laws should be just so as to produce humans. It seems to me that there are two possibilities: either these laws are arbitrary or they are not. In either case, I don’t see that the arrival of humans has any bearing on the matter.
This is the most wonderful kind of presentation. It answers questions you were asking and other questions you didn't know existed, then raises new questions you didn't know exist! Thanks Dr. Hossenfelder!
I love this lady. She’s super funny, so forthright and does such a good job of presenting all sides of an issue. She’s not afraid to call out made up BS like inflation and dark matter too.
First time i saw a physicist saying that crap i was like "ok so we once again present assumptions based on guesses as facts". I really like Sabines analogies, like "newtons law dont tell us how many apples are on earth".
Dear Mrs. Hossenfelder, I‘m a physicist myself and as far as I can remember that perfect 1:1 ratio had always been justified with the notion of the very earliest universe containing only energy, i.e. photons, and all matter had to be created through pair production in some way similar to condensation processes in our slightly less energetic earthly environment. And since pair production is per definition perfectly symmetrical so should be the matter to antimatter ratio. That was the reasoning as it had been presented to me as a student and I always found it very easy to follow and compelling. Could you please point out the error or misunderstanding in this reasoning?
Sorry, I'm not Mrs. Hossenfelder, nor a physicist. Seen from outside, I think physicists have a hard time getting out of the sandbox of their time arrow. Btw. I started studying physics as minor subject and stopped precisely with second law of thermodynamics. In quantum mechanics entropy occurs mainly as a trace of some tensor, we set it to zero and are happy, and my intuition clearly said: "This is right". So switched to information tech'. When you consider pseudo random generators and how to modify them to provide real random numbers, the result is: Information is preserved, all generation of information/entropy is virtual. Now to the assumed imbalance of matter/anti-matter: the event horizon of a black hole is a trivial generator of imbalance from the Hawking effect. Another possible answer is hidden behind the question: Why don't we observe the CPT symmetry? In any case there is no contradiction to a global 1:1 ratio
Wonderful truth-telling, as always! There's almost certainly more auntie matter than anti-matter. My mother had three sisters - and it did seem at times like they would annihilate each other.
Aunties not annihilating each other! Can’t stop laughing.
A solid reason to pronounce the second syllable of "antimatter" as I instead of E. (Sabine raised the question of how it should be pronounced.)
aunihilate
I like how nicely auntie matter translates to Tantimaterie in german.
@@bgdexter Hah that's a good one
"Physicists make a living from solving problems so they have an incentive in creating problems where there aren't any"
I am a software developer and today I learned that physicists and programmers are very much alike.
Great stuff as always, thanks for sharing!
P.s. "it's a highly speculative idea, that is a polite way of saying that is nonsense" makes a great line for your merchandise imho
Isn't that capitalism in a nutshell?
I like to say that many applications are cures in search of a disease.
I don't know, in my experience programmers mostly have to live with other people creating problems where there aren't any, and more importantly, where there shouldn't be any. Like changing the requirements two hours before the deadline.
@@luizgagliardi6614 Nope. Not a all.
There is a famous Dilbert cartoon about programmers making their own bugs so they could be rewarded for fixing them.
Sabine, you aren't merely a talented communicator and physicist, you're a super talented EPISTEMOLOGIST, which is something I feel a lot of modern science communicators forget in the face of catchy headlines and hype. We must take the world as it is, and meet it on its terms, and when we can't cut through the fog, we have to be comfortable enough with ourselves to understand where the limits of knowledge end. You do that consistently and with pluck, so THANK YOU for that!
The one thing that she is *not* (at least, in her videos) is a talented epistemologist! I gather she _is_ a talented physicist; and she is also a great communicator of science, one of the best on youtube.
Unfortunately that level of humility is currently not in vogue in popular science or society in general and even less the understanding of why it’s important.
1
Isn't a talented epistemologist an oxymoron? At least this is what some physicists, like Weinberg, believed.
it's like fake physicists don't even want the truth to be found out, cause it makes every other hypothesis obsolete, theirs included.
Not much has changed from the times of Galileo
As an engineer who is fairly well versed in how the "normal size" things around me work, I really appreciate your videos that talk about the really small and really big that often tend to behave differently. Thank you!
All this stuff just to tell us that you are an engineer?
@@alvinuli5174 Hey Alvin! Fair Crack of the Whip, babe! That's way to hard on a sincerely grateful dude! 😃
@@alvinuli5174 I think it's very helpful for content creators of this level to understand who their audience is. Working people have a right to be proud to exist in any "intellectual" spaces.
I watch a couple of your videos every day. Even as s a 79 year old retired physicist they all are mind-expanding and give me several hours of thoughtful pondering. Thank you.
Yes she's a real scientist..... One enjoying engineer here
Sabine is a treasure for us who want to learn cosmology and physics but don't have formal training. She is brilliant and funny too.
it's more important what she does. she goes against the establishment of crooks. the basics you can learn from regular schools.
@@AnoNymous-dh2sv yes, you both are right, any way her work is important and brave and helps
I've often wondered if the baryon asymmetry could just be a mundane statistical blip. Like, you can't flip a coin 10 times, or even 10⁹⁷ times, and expect to reliably get a perfectly exactly equal number of heads and tails, no matter how perfect the coin is or how perfectly you flip it.
I've had the same thought, like what if we live in a patch, larger than the observable universe, that happens to have more baryons? And elsewhere, the situation is the other way around, or more or less in balance.
But, that would have to arise during the inflationary era, blowing up a patch that had a few less anti-quarks to the size of the universe wee see. But the quarks appeared at the _end_ of the inflation, so any such statistical fluctuation would not show a uniform value over all of observed space.
The problem is that standard deviations (statistical blips) are of the order of the square root of the number of particles/events. So in the case of the baryon content of the observable universe couldnt be much larger than O(10^40) or O(10^45) considering the particle content is O(10^80) to O(10^90).
yes
Everytime you flip a coin and get heads you also get not-tails and vice versa. After flipping the coin several times n you would expect: haids + tails = n = not-head + not-tails.
But when your result would be: haids + tails > not-head + not-tails
you maybe would worry.
Thomas Extra : after the first coin flip, do you start the next one heads up or tails up?
The low key humor in this video is on point. I love how you made this into a “teachable moment” about initial conditions and how our current theories work.
She’s wrong. Not about Dirac, or the incorrect assumptions that some scientists have made. Nor is she wrong (necessarily) about the vast sums we spend on colliders and how it might better be used. I’m not qualified to quantify that last. But, to argue that there is no value in trying to understand why anti-matter did not annihilate the entire universe at its inception is just wrong headed. She’s trying to invalidate the science by invalidating the question, which is a personality thing, not a scientific approach. Even she admits it would be great to know the answer. We don’t have to call it a, “problem,” but surely it’s a sensible question? She makes an assumption of her own; that there simply wasn’t an equal amount of anti-matter, but she cannot know that, simply by inferring it from our existence? The discovery of anti-matter stars would make a nonsense of that assumption for a start. There could have been a condition that kept anti-matter apart from baryonic matter, which would in turn, tell us incredibly important things about physics and the universe? To say the question has no value is no different to saying any question in physics has no value, despite her knowledge that many of the greatest, most important discoveries that have tangibly changed our world, were made by scientists who were simply interrogating questions that interested them and could have had no way of knowing where their investigations would ultimately lead. Newton could never have known that he was contributing to GPS Satellite technology for instance.
It strikes me as a stubborn resistance to accelerators has been conflated with the basis of their use in her mind? She’d be more honest if she questioned their use alone, rather than the question itself. When she does that I see a slippery slight of hand at work, but she’s merely sawing at the branch she’s sitting on. Anyone can say, “It is what it is,” about any value. Indeed, many scientists have done so in history, and later come off as the fools for doing so. Edward Hoyle did the same thing when he coined the, “Big Bang Theory,” for work that he personally didn’t like, yet which proved to be perfectly true.
I wish scientists would stay out of their internal politics in these videos and just get on with the science? There’s a, “teachable moment,” in this for her too.
@@ashroskell Sounds fascinating, but all I know about the topic is that you can’t control your antimatter engine without dilithium crystals.
Another thing I know about any science is that there’s no absolute right or wrong at this level of theoretical physics. There’s only more or less probable.
Basically, any ideas on the matter at hand could be valid unless proven false.
@@ashroskell I think you're absolutely right and I added a comment saying a similar thing myself. At one time the orbits of the planets would have been considered "just so" and so science would not even have got started if we thought apparent pre-conditions were off-limits for further enquiry. I'm a big fan of Sabine's but I think she's looking at this one the wrong way.
@@ashroskell in my mind the most interesting point raised is “why do we expect the ratio to be 1”? Is there something special about that number other than it is pleasant and symmetrical?
I don’t see any argument here against conducting science to answer questions, but is there some mathematical basis for this value being something other than what is observed? If not what question are we answering?
@@ashroskell there is value in that but its clearly due to excess of matter
I thought the entire point of this question is that when we produce antimatter ourselves, there is always a corresponding amount of matter particles created at the same time (edit: well, maybe not, according to some LHC results in 2010?). If no baryonic matter could exist at the moment of the big bang itself, what process created more matter than antimatter afterward and why are we unable to do the same, or perhaps even create more antimatter than matter?
Exactly, sabine is saying there is no problem when there indeed is, the baryon number of our universe is NOT an initial condition, like she supposes.
@@NoahFriedman weirdly enough other physicists have gone down the same thought process and concluded that the explanation “because that’s how it is” is not satisfactory enough.
We could argue the same way “because that’s how it is” for pretty much all physical phenomena in which case physics is completely rudimentary.
Couldn’t we say the same for parity?
Hmm. So, Wikipedia says that “In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.” I’m not sure if that means that the universe could not have had a baryon number. But the question does remain: if Big Bang does not have to have a baryon number, then why does the number, when it does arise, have to be zero?
What I don‘t understand from her video: Does she hink the whole matter antimatter discussion is nonsense at all or does she think the particle accelerator business is just the wrong method for solving the problem?
@@luudest Both.
Very much appreciated. There's nothing better than listening to someone with a thorough understanding of complex subject matter who can explain it in ways that an ordinary mind can assimilate. Nothing.
Well, there are better things, but this is still good.
This reminds me a bit of the anisotropy stuff you touched on in a different video. The ratio could be 1 globally but fluctuate locally, so there's a hidden third question of, even if you assume that the ratio *should be* 1, you're sneaking in an assumption about the scale you'd expect to measure that at.
The ratio is 1.000..whatever..001 in the *observable* universe. What makes this scale privileged? Perhaps we just randomly live in a matter-antisymmetric pocket of a matter-symmetric universe?
Well or even at the galaxy level. She makes a good point that it's hard to figure out how an anti-star in a normal galaxy could form - but does the same objection apply to an anti-galaxy forming in a normal galaxy cluster? Or an anti-galaxy-cluster forming in the observable universe? Would we be able to measure, with current instruments, matter-antimatter collisions between an anti-galaxy and the intergalactic matter that might wander into it?
@@ps.2That's also my naive guess if antimatter doesn't reverse time. Imagine if half the observed galaxy clusters out there are antimatter with enough distance to matter that only undetectable amounts of annihilation events occur.
I enjoy your style of communication so much, Sabine - thank you for what you do!
I think the reason for '1' is quite simple: if matter and antimatter are same except for the charge, then these should be treated equally when it comes to creating matter/antimatter from 'nothing'. There should be no especial treatment for any of these. But that's more philosophy than physic I believe...
@Peter from NZ Not expert but that is also my understanding. What we perceive as assymetry, could just be a perception limitation. In the mayhem of inflation and hyper intense, merged fields of the early universe it seems to me quite possible matter and anti matter could have been mainly driven apart. The anti matter is out there alright but in a separate universe, well beyond our cosmic horizon.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
A value of 1.000... allows current physics to bootstrap a universe arising from nothing. It helps answer the question of why the univese exists without inventing an initial condition. Was there an initial condition that was biased in matter-antimatter? I don't know. But to say "it just is" is not better than "saying it should not be." Both are different points of view that are just as inexplicable. We are seeking answers here, and there does seem to be a riddle. Maybe we will never know the answer to it, but that for me doesn't mean we just shouldn't bother with figuring it out and accept the "is just is a value not quite equal to 1.000..." explanation.
If the implied ratio of M to (M) based on observations was 1.4 or 37.2, then Hosenfelder's argument would make a lot of sense, there would clearly be a mechanism that preferentially generated one form over the other. However, the universe that we observe appears to have a very strong "preference" for symmetry. Further 1.000000000001 is pretty darn close to 1, even for a physicist. If the universe's "initial conditions" had a preference for creating almost exactly the same amount of anti-matter as matter, then there is physics to be discovered to tell us why the ratio should be almost-but-not-quite 1. Physicists look at things that need explaining and try to explain them, that's kinda what physicists do. If they just did what Sabina does, and say, "well, that's just the way it is" then we would not have made much progress in the field.
@@paulpeterson4216 I agree. I appreciate Sabine for calling bulls**t on some things. We need somebody to keep our heads on straight. But she has not convinced me on this one. Like you said, if we just accept it then we would not have made much progress in the field. At the very least, this is a "something" and deserves more than a wave of the hand and let go. While I don't pretend to have the answer, I do understand there is a question that deserves one.
I'm more skeptical of this one from Sabine. She is usually spot on but here I think we have reasons beyond the Dirac equation to suspect that the pure energy of the very early Big Bang would have resulted in a 1:1 ratio of a. to m. Also, I do think that the CP violating interactions that have been seen in strange and bottom quarks may suggest the answer to question of why we have more matter. These quarks can only be produced in high energy particle collisions. I know Sabin is down on further investment into HEP but this problem seems to me to be one of the few reasons that might justify further exploration and particularly at current or future HEP facilities. Sabine, correct me if I'm overstated my position. I'm generally sympathetic towards less funding for HEP but here, I'm not.
the only proof that the universe is matte and not anti matter is the fact our local star system and galaxy is matter. And of course it is -- they were all formed from the same motion = the galaxy is spinning one way and not the other.Just like most of the planets all spin one way. So too does the particles in it all spin in a specific way, their initial motion during the early formation is imparted onto the whole batch.
It could very well be that Andromedy IS anti matter. Otherwise why is it moving staight towards us, its going on the wrong way! lol. It could be antimatter and no one has the slightest idea because its exactly the same thing. anti matter is just the opposite of matter for us -- its completely relative. if you're in the field of a system, everything in that field will be tuned to the same essential motions and vectors. so its reasonable to assume the entire galaxy or most of it is matter except in extreme cases like if two black holes had a near miss. That could easily flip things about and cause chaos. But as for other galaxies, theres nothing to prevent it - a galaxy is not annhilating another galaxy at those distances, it stays naive to the spins of another galaxy and will probbaly Never collide with anything else. Even galaxy mergers are mostly just empty space.
no way would a 1:1 ratio produce a universe with an excess in favour of matter
@@fast_harmonic_psychedelic sorry this doesnt sound scientific
here's the thing. Why exactly do you think that there was a moment when the universe was "pure energy"?
If the universe really has more matter than anti-matter (as it seems) then that's not the case
@@LukeKenji thats where e=mc squared (einstein) and de broglies waves indicate that the universe is mostly waves of energy and particles come from energy thresholds maybe?
Great video as always Sabine; that said...
... Saying that the intrigue is unwarranted seems to underplay the significance of a physical constant being observed as SO close to 1. The number 1 is so universal and important in describing mathematical relationships, why is it not intriguing to find a physical result that deviates from it by so little? Also, I don't see why the distinction between the questions "Why 1?" and "Why 1.0000000001?" makes the discussion any more or less valid. No matter the order of advance, either line of questioning would inevitably lead to progress, regardless of the ultimate truth. I definitely agree that pop-sci media tends to completely fudge the delivery of concepts in regards to this topic, but to imply that further studies are some kind of wild goose chase just seems too close-minded to me.
EDIT: some words and phrases
The point about "why 1?" vs "why 1.0000001?" is that both are equally "mysterious". There may be an underlying explanation, but there very well may not be. The universe could just have arbitrary initial conditions and parameters, and there is no way to tell a priori which ones have a deeper explanation and which ones do not. The mere existence of an arbitrary constant is not an actual problem that *requires* explanation. Only inconsistencies require explanation. Either inconsistencies between data and theory, internal inconsistencies within a theory, or inconsistencies between theories (e.g. General Relativity and the Standard Model)
I think Baryon asymmetry is more interesting as to how it relates to conservation of baryon number, and what that may suggest about the laws of physics.
Yes, good point actually.
Conservation of baryon number is not "baked in" into SM. It's one of so-called "accidental" symmetries of SM. This means that there can be an extension of SM which loses this property. (Contrast this with conservation of electrical charge, which *must* be retained by any extension).
It took me a while to suss out that SM was probably the standard model. Using abreviations outside your little circle isnt helpful, because most people are exposed to myriads of abreviations
CHARGE SYMMETRY IS FUNDAMENTAL to particle physics, and I'd argue the unifying, underlying, dielectric field of +ve cells bound by a free-flowing Dirac Sea of -ve 'Electron Gas'
--
Anti-stars don't solve anything really, compared to taking the most logical leap, that 2 positrons collide with one electron at the right velocity and angle, (under the right gravity) to form a Proton, and 2 electrons collide with 1 positron to form an anti-proton... We know electrons and positrons come in pairs and are the building blocks of all matter...
--
Why is there not one official, published line of enquiry where UP QUARKS are Positrons and DOWN QUARKS are Electrons? This is the fundamental error afflicted theoretical physics.. The evidence for this case is overwhelming to me. This is what all scattering experiments and matter creation and decay experiments point to... Why is the physics silent on this very logical, tiny little conceptual leap, at least for theoretical purposes?
Very good point. I, a non-physicist, was about to say that, but u came in first.
It is quite possible that our Galaxy has more ant-matter than anti-matter.
Impossible. Watch the video.
@@Rick.Grayson Impossible. Read again.
What about anty matter?
@@Rick.Grayson Sabine agrees that possible we have no antimatter. While we certainly have some ant-matter on the Earth.
@@Llortnerof or Aunty Matter, how is she going these days?
Didn't Feynman say that antimatter behaved like matter going backwards in time? If so, then couldn't it have been that at the big bang time went in both directions, and there is an antimatter universe evolving "backwards" in time relative to our "forward" direction?
Yes. This is an actual model being fleshed out called "CPT Symmetric Universe" - it has some testable predictions to boot.
Neil Turok is probably the most famous advocate & you can find some papers about it.
Are you saying our three dimensional universe is nothing but a part of a multi-dimensional explosion shockwave and the that's the reason we experience "movement in the time dimension at local rest" and an "expansion" of the universe?
Obviously, I'm not a physicist.
I don’t think that captures what Feynman really meant. The “going backwards in time” part is believe is just the time-reversal operator.
Yes he did.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
I absolutely adore you, Sabine. You're a wonderful, brilliant and incredibly beautiful human being. I'm so happy amazing people like you make videos for us on youtube. Thank you so much ❤️
I love Sabine’s down-to-Earth, non-sensational, pragmatic, back-to-basics type of resolve. Physics really needs this today. The misunderstandings sometimes reach high places and sadly sensationalism is often a necessary evil to keep the funds coming in.
sabine's take is sensational in itself, and not many people in her field would agree with it. it's great that she's there to poke at this and other established theory, but just because she's a great communicator and against the consensus doesn't mean she's right.
to put it another way: if the answer were so simple as making an assumption and being done with it, the issue would've been solved a hundred years ago. and maybe a few people like sabine would now be making speeches about "we can't just assume it willy-nilly, that is just science gobbledygook."
Sabine is saying something basically no other physicist would agree with. She's saying we should just give up on trying to explain it (which is her take on a bunch of other issues too).
From what I understand (which isn't much), in the initial moments after t=0, there were no particles but only energy which later formed particles and anti particles. Since a unit of energy creates equal masses of matter and antimatter, there should've been an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe. What exactly is wrong here? Also I don't think number of particles should be part of the initial conditions since they didn't exist in first few moments after t=0.
This!
Her problem with your conclusion comes from your statement of, "Since a unit of energy creates equal masses of matter and antimatter, there should've been an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe." She's saying that maybe energy doesn't create an equal amount of matter and antimatter, but maybe a (very) slightly different ratio. This is, of course, against the idea of things like baryon conservation number, so I agree with you.
@Artem Down But wouldn't this imply a non isotropic pair creation model? Sure, antimatter and matter would have opposite momentum (well, not strictly opposite but conserved total momentum; that's probably just semantics as I get your point), but that's only per pair produced. There shouldn't be a preferred spacetime direction for matter and antimatter in bulk, right?
@Artem Down That doesn't sound like any known behaviour of energy-to-matter systems we know of, nor any known physics. I'm not saying that isn't allowed, but that I see no physical motivation for it. When we do particle or heavy ion collisions we see nothing of the sort. So I'll just say I'm not optimistic about those outlooks proving feasible, though I suppose some of them aren't ruled out by physical law per se (they could be by something like a statistical analysis, but that's more complex than I want to delve into!).
the thing is, there's no reason to think that at "t=0" (whatever that's supposed to mean) there wasn't any matter or anti-matter. In fact, if the universe really has more matter than anti-matter (as it seems to have, from our perspective) then at no point in time did it have "only energy".
This forced hypothesis of equal proportions of matter and anti-matter, as an initial condition, seems to me, again, to be a search for symmetry, which basically means using beauty as a criterion for truth.
exactly
Also theoretically speaking if our universe was perfect it wouldn't have formed in the first place and would have stayed a singularity. Right?
Still you would have to explain why CPT symmetry will be broken at the beginning of the universe and then later comes into play. And CPT symmetry is fundamental to all quantum theories, so is not that easy as Sabine try to convince the viewer here.
In my view of anti-matter, the properties of a local lack of order within an ordered system, and the properties of added-back order within that same system, are identical except for a sign.
As beautiful and unique of a symmetry a single snowflake crystal has in itself, it is the snowfall of many of them that makes winter fun, and snow useful in nature.
Seeing the inner symmetries and their greater complexity as a system at the same time is not easy, but that is how it formed. Out of nothing appeared something.
This thinking leads to an emergent assymmetry between the existance of matter and antimatter: There is so much more nothingness than somethingness in our Universe, that it is almost only matter that can have order and complexity persisting inside it.
But, being a solid state physicist, having elementary particles more abundant than antiparticles within a space-time manifold of the universe that we can observe does not mean there is no manifold elsewhere where the opposite is true. In fact, it does make sense for both types of manifolds to exist with equal fraction within the same 4D universe unless it is pre-charged as suggested. Of course there is no way of knowing for sure weather we are matter within emptyness or antimatter within fullness, as we can't tell the difference while being one of the possibilties.
It is interesting that there are 4 orthogonal space-time manifolds in 4D and we must be in one of them. If there was exactly zero coupling between them, ours would add exactly 25% to its 4D "gravitational wave" structure. But since ours add slightly more than that to it, the four manifolds must be connected somehow. At at least light-speed when-where it does, due to the orthogonality.
THE POSITRONIC UNIVERSE..... 2 Positrons collide with 1 electron at a suitable angle and velocity under high gravity and form a Proton. In a free state they are 99% electric energy (continuous vibes due to a permanent (barring annihilation) field imbalance trying to balance but failing). In a bound, neutralised state the spherical Electrostatic Force vibe energy turns into Strong Mass Force Bonds (there are 2 main possibilities for this force in my model thought experiment universe).. A Neutron is a Proton with an electron bound by the Nuclear Force that is not the same as the Strong Mass Force.
--
Don't be BLINDED to the copious amounts of evidence that Up Quarks are Positrons and Down Quarks are Electrons, and that the 'fabric of space' is a (subelectric) charged matter-energy field of close-packed +ve cells (quanta) bound by free-flowing -ve subspace gas.. The simplest wave carrying, force carrying, fixed or variable metric (cell gap shrinks with gravity) DIELECTRIC FIELD.. The Positron-Electron Field..
--
Schrodinger never meant for his wave carrying field to be a 'probability field' - that is an artefact of The Measurement Problem.. There is no Antimatter Catastrophe.. Lager holes and sprays + chunks of cells quickly decay into electrons, positrons and larger nucleons...
--
Hit a Proton with enough EM vibes (Transverse wave in the spherical vibe field of a charged particle caused by it moving up and down) and it will form a POSITRON-ELECTRON PAIR... THERE ARE ONLY 2 ELECTRIC CHARGES. Spin is a separate issue, QCD is confused but useful, QFT is utterly overly abstracted, but useful.
--
It is a fudge because it invents a new 'physical' field for each new 'fundamental' 'particle' (MATTER-ENERGY FIELD FLUCTUATION).. ONLY POSITRONS & ELECTRONS are needed..
--
Dark Energy can be incorporated with gravity with a Brans-Dicle / Einstein-Dicke style GR with a variable spatial metric (local cell gap).. I take this further with one of my Strong Force Mass Models being a cubic-stretch and packed core, as gravity increases to the centre of mass - the centre of each electron and positron... Other model has a torus of loops of flowing -ve subspace gas and cells.
The explanation is very simple: God didn't have a calculator with enough decimals.
Quick, write a paper about it! 😅
this is why using floating point numbers is dangerous, you might accidentally create a universe
assuming god wanted exact 1:1
🤣🤣
Brilliant. This is how Wokiwoki get promoted and become celebrities. Imagine Kardashev would spin in his grave knowing God is a civilisation type 5.
It's being kept in a secret vault by the aliens and we can't find them.😂😂😂
This is an insightful critique of how academics who solve problems are often incentivized to invent work for themselves. It extends beyond physics. I remember seeing a talk by Paul Horwich at UCD Dublin where he made similar observations about many philosophy departments.
It is more likely that he did not understand the motivation for their research. She is always mocking physicists and calling them opportunist but I think that means she is really an opportunist herself
@@fkeyvan Game recognizes game.
Even if she's an opportunist...does that make her observation incorrect?
Physics and science like most things human society has created is corrupted by people who want money, power, control.
The mere suggestion that the sciences are above that sort of thing is quite honestly insane.
@@incognit01233 Do you really think that physiscists that work decades on antimatter issues do it for power and money? I don't think people that "waste" their lifes reading and writing papers are looking for that
Sabine, I live halfway from Silicon Valley to San Francisco. Last week I was in a local Starbucks and overheard this interchange:
Day says, “ I love the weekends, especially Saturday”.
His teenager responds, “What’s so great about Saturdays?”
Simultaneous response from four surrounding tables, “ SABINE!!”.
I agree with them, of course. Thank you for all your content. BTW, loved to Lex interview.
I truely love your fresh approach to these topics.
Having your view points helps me to review my own understandings and to identify teachings that may just not be based on actual science.
You have definitely helped me to see the trap of just believing the views of those that are considered learned and physics luminaries.
I can better see that they are still human and prone to personal bias.
And accepting any teaching as gospel just because the person teaching it is considered to be a leader in the field, rather than by being convinced by scientifically tested evidence, is definitely dangerous to anyone’s actually scientific knowledge.
Keep up the great work.
p.s. I really enjoyed your book.
What you wrote is really funny (and sad at the same time) because you now believe other side "physics luminaries", namely her, still. And you do it under video that demonstrated her usual bashing of accelerators and "pretty math" is comically and utterly wrong, Dirac discovered anti-matter because math just worked. Gee, maybe Sabine TOO is just "still human"?
@@KuK137
Such passion could be commendable in any other field of human endeavour but not that of science.
And if Character Assassination is all you have to offer in this conversation then you too are just human and probably should just stick to the sidelines.
@@PaulGreeve : I love her show and her style, but haven’t read her book. Yet, I don’t agree with her entirely. Taking a page from your own book, so to speak, I disagree in principle that the mere investigation of what sets the values of anti-matter versus baryonic matter is valueless. Whether we call it a, “problem,” or not is merely word play, after all? It’s an interesting mystery.
Dirac only predicted that there would be such a thing as, “anti-matter,” by doing math and he was later proven correct, though he never suggested he knew what the amount would be. So far, so cleared up, and thank you to Sabine for that. Yet, to just take the, “Shut up and calculate,” attitude thereafter and to suggest that it’s time wasting to delve deeper into that mystery is wrong headed in my view.
I am not expert enough to comment on whether the vast sums spent on colliders is worth it or not, or if the science is valid when it comes to this question in particular, but there is an obvious question worthy of investigation by science isn’t there? If the amounts of anti-matter and matter were 1 to 1 equal, there would be no universe in which we could ponder the question at all. So, isn’t it natural to wonder what caused that imbalance? It was by pondering such questions that Einstein came up with his ideas, for which later scientists like Arthur Eddington dreamt up experiments that could prove him right.
Either, there was an equal amount of both matter types and there was something that caused them to avoid direct contact in the earliest moments of the universe’s existence, or there were different amounts to start with? Either way, how is trying to discover which is the case a waste of any scientist’s time? Knowing what conditions set these values could change our understanding of physics altogether?
I think it’s a slippery slight of hand to try to invalidate the question, just because you would rather spend money an resources differently. She admits herself that it would be, “wonderful to know the answer.” But, then just goes on to say there is no way to figure it out. I think she’s wrong about that, and about the ingenuity of science to come up with ways of interrogating these questions. She reminds me of Hoyle dismissing the Big Bang theory whilst coining the expression, refuting the very basis of the science out of a personal dislike, rather than for a scientific reason. To speak in absolutes, “There is no science in existence today equipped to investigate the question,” (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what she said) is a bonkers thing to say, like standing in a forest and saying, “There’s nothing here from which we could build a house,” when a thousand carpenters would beg to differ.
Don’t get me wrong. I love her show, and she’s usually right on the money. But she has an emotive attitude that sometimes gets the better of her, which a lot of people miss because of her cool Germanic style. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Of course it’s an intriguing question, from which the whole of physics would benefit by the answer! Maybe the debate should be about, “how,: it is investigated, not, “if,” it should be?
What do you think? ✌️
@@KuK137 : What is actually, “sad,” here is the fact that you have destroyed your own argument by predicating it upon assumptions and then spurting out a personal point of view in a hostile, bickering tone, rather than being adult enough to interrogate the questions from a grownup’s perspective. Show us on the dolly where Sabine hurt you, son? Can’t you keep your emotions in check? At least long enough to have a meaningful discussion? . . .
@@ashroskell
Gah. How to answer?
I only completed half a degree in Science many years ago. Most of my current physics ‘knowledge’ comes from popular books, the web and UA-cam videos, so I’m not really qualified in any capacity to answer you with any certainty, though I wish it was otherwise.
But this is why I like Sabine’s views because she causes me to reassess my current understanding.
That being said I don’t think she has all the answers either.
Further, I know how hard it is to convert thinking into words, both spoken and written and to do this in another language must be even harder, as Sabine has to, so her message could be getting lost in the translation for some of us.
So about that answer (my personal musings):
I too would hope that in time we can discover answers to all the whys of the physical universe.
But right now it seems that for the last few decades what at first a flood of new fundamental physics discoveries has slowed to a trickle.
With funding becoming scarce, the Physics community is going to have to make some hard decisions on where next to spend their limited time and money.
Further, the use of ‘beauty’ and ‘symmetry’ to act as a guide to developing the next theories that lead to real world discoveries (such as Dirac and antimatter) have yet to bear fruit.
The hope that a bigger particle collider will solve this drought in new discoveries, is an expensive gamble at best, because currently (to my knowledge) there is no solid predictions left that such a device would be hunting for (outside of Super Symmetry and String Theory - and these provide no targeted energy levels to guarantee success).
It seams to me that particle physics is coming to a crossroad and that doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results, might not be the best way to determine the best way forward.
Anyway, these are just my unqualified thoughts, which Sabine has helped me to develop over the course of watching her videos and from her considering her arguments as set it in her book. Because prior to discovering her channel, I just believed that fundament physics has everything in hand. Now I hope I have a more balance and realistic understanding of the issues facing fundamental physics at this time.
I love your channel.Much of the specific content is incomprehensible to me, but I love hearing your argumentation. I reasoned that somehow there was more matter than anti-matter but usually I enjoy finding the limits to my knowledge, ability to follow an argument and encountering the moment where I have to admit that I am clueless (usually very near the start!).
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
My understanding is that Observations show that high energy particle creation from collisons is balanced between matter and anti-matter. Even if the universe starts off with initial unbalanced ratio the churn of particle creation and destruction should errase the initial condition and overwrite it with the ratio of particle creation, which we observationally belive to be equal, thus the paradox of the universe having either matter OR antimatter in it. The search for an asymetry in the creation of particles is thus a way out because it creates a durable imbalance.
What I think is neglected here is the possibility for the univese to be balanced without self anialation, because anialation is local. If a region randomly becomes richer in one type then it could persist and form it's own structures seperatly from other regions, once the particle creation churn and mass exchange between regions slows to negligable levels.
If their is large scale anti-matter structure in the Universe it's got to be a huge scales, galactic clusters, voids etc.
She doesn’t understand the mystery. The mystery arises because matter has only ever been observed to be created in particle/anti-particle pairs. So all matter that didn’t initially annihilate should be comprised of 1/2 matter and 1/2 antimatter. Her method of thinking of just saying “there must have just been more matter” doesn’t solve the mystery. To solve the mystery, we either need to find a way that matter can be created without creating the same mass of antimatter, to find an amount of antimatter that tells us that the “missing” antimatter might be out there and just separated from matter by space, or to find a way that antimatter can be annihilated without interacting with its matter counterpart. It isn’t a very hard concept to understand, so I don’t see why she is struggling with it so much. Yes, the bias could be 1.0000001% towards matter to explain our universe, but that doesn’t solve the mystery. It just shifts the mystery to “what causes that tiny bias, and how is such a bias possible?”
As someone with a background in condensed matter, this always seemed like kind of a non-problem. The universe just has a positive Fermi level!
Yes, but WHY? "Because it does" is insufficient.
I believe the point is that the question (say) "why is the antimatter ratio 1.whatever?" is entirely valid, but "why is the ratio not 1" sort of obscures the question "why should the ratio be 1 in the first place?" Which part of what theory predicts that? (rhetorical...)
This is insufficient, for example a kinetic theory of gravity can locate anti-matter we just need to improve the theory.
Can one apply the anthropomorphic principle? If it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to talk about it? Or is it possible that the assumption matter and antimatter would exactly annihilate faulty because the distribution of matter and antimatter was lumpy initially and so there are beings in other galaxies wondering why the entire universe is made of antimatter?
@@FredPlanatia A kinetic theory of gravity would suppose gravity is the epiphenomenon of matter traveling in the same direction - with the added bonus that mass would be indistinct from inertia exactly as Newton predicted. It would use anti-matter instead of dark matter which is what the current theory of gravity uses.
Real cool. A delight to follow the description of the essentials of Dirac's equations. And the description of how some people try to get their projects funded...;)
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
So, the the universe immediately after the big bang already contained all of its baryonic matter? Is that a fact? That quarks existed immediately at the big bang? Because if not, if quarks were created, they were created in pairs of quark antiquark, and so the baryonic number must be exactly 0.
The reason, as I understand it, why physicists believe there should have been an equal amount of matter to antimatter in the early universe is that they are assuming an initial condition where the universe consists entirely of photons. If that were the case, then one does indeed need to come up with some explanation why matter-antimatter particle pair production did not produce both in perfectly equal amounts. Of course, assumptions are not fact, but it seems justification enough to me why we would want to build experiments looking for matter-antimatter asymmetries.
This was brilliant, and it's the first time I've remotely understood this "problem". Thanks.
When an observed number is within that margin of a famous number, I kinda understand the tendency to investigate if they are not equal in reality. I mean, you could make a statistical analysis of all the numbers we use and find a likelyhood that two numbers being this close together is not statistically significant, and in this case I think you would have to conclude that there may be something there.
When you talk about ratio, one is not a "famous number"... It's simply the equality... No "magic" to be around 1 with a ratio... You DO realize this I hope ? One is a BORING ratio result.
Wow! She just blew up a bunch of posturing by the science media.
Thanks for the clarity.
Also, Dirac was awesome. Math is an amazing tool.
@@shayneoneill1506 I think the main point is that Dirac’s equation doesn’t require that antimatter and matter exists in equal amounts. Dirac’s equations simply argue that antimatter exists. Are you saying she is wrong about that point?
Math unfortunately can not measure everything. I would like to see more basic research on neutrinos and antimatter. In particular I think there should be research into possible interactions between neutrinos and antimatter. If there is a symmetry violation discovered between positrons and neutrinos it could give insight into the problem.
@@גבריאל-ח3י I agree math can’t measure everything. I also don’t think that current scientific frameworks account for all of reality.
However, I think she is correct here because her claim is really modest. Her claim is simply that Dirac’s equations don’t require a mystery concerning anti matter. It seems there she is correct.
New research has indicated that matter and antimatter are not actually identical with only the charge being opposite. I forgot the specifics, but it has to do with CPT parity. What are your thoughts on the matter?
This was really helpful for answering, or at least partially answering my question of how we know if something is made of matter or antimatter by looking at it through a telescope of some kind.
Cern can make antiprotons at a facility called the alpha project. The apparatus collides protons at nearly the speed of light into an iridium target. The -ve antiprotons are anillated if they come into contact +ve protons producing energy.
The Sun has extremely high pressure, and energies that might also be able to produce antiprotons? If so antiprotons would be anillated by interacting with protons, and this would release the energy keeping the Sun burning.
The Sun is positively charged in relation to the earth -ve electrical charge. So the Sun would try to hold on to -ve antiprotons produced anillating them almost instantaneously. This energy would also contribute to the sun's thermal temperature.
The +ve Sun also repels the +ve protons in the form of the solar wind which are attracted to to the earth's relative -ve potential.
This could be the reson we do not see antimatter it is keep in stars in the form of energy. (E = MC SQUARED ). This could explain the missing antimatter?
Question: I’ve heard that virtual particles always pop into existence in a matter-anti matter pair and then annihilate, except when it happens at the event horizon of a black hole where one of the particles gets captured and the other doesn’t, which causes Hawking radiation.
Isn’t that a reason to think the ration should have been 1:1 in the early universe? Since that’s we the ratio we see for virtual particles now?
Virtual particles aren't real. Please forget about them - _especially_ near an event horizon. Ludicrous.
If we're accepting that quantum processes involved true randomness, why would we be surprised that these same processes create slightly different numbers of particles and anti particles?
Well you are surprised if you thought it's different 😉
Because they're random but evenly distributed. So for example an Electron isn't biased to one side of an atom constantly. You don't detect it 99.99999% of the time on one side and the rest on the other. You detect it about half the time on each side.
@@petersmythe6462 That is true. But to have this even ratio you have to do many observations on the electron. We can do only one observation on the universe so it should be unsurprising to find it in a random particular state. Well you may say the universe is not a quantum object like an electron, but it should have been one if the Big Bang Theory is correct.
@@alpyre Yes, but an even better response is simply to note that almost no uniform random process is ever actually observed perfectly uniform unless by incredible fluke. Chances are overwhelming we would naturally get a small excess, the type of particle in the tiny excess is what we'd call "matter," but that's completely arbitrary, if we were made of positrons and anti-baryons we'd call them the "matter" and the electrons etc "anti-matter." Follow this up with 10^80 baryons is indeed a tiny excess of say an initial 10^81 mc^2 worth of them all. That's the robust response to all this hooey.
Symmetry is generally conserved and its led to the discoveries of new particles. So when symmetry is broken, it's really strange. Another way of looking at this "problem" is that the universe is chiral and there's no explanation for it. Why would the universe be left handed instead of right handed, or vice versa? Randomness isn't a good explanation for symmetry breaking when symmetry has been a cornerstone of physics and chemistry for so long.
The universe conserves symmetry, which means you cannot isolate electric charges and color charges. You cannot have a jar of all positively charges ions. The vacuum energy of space will create a balance of charge before you succeed. Symmetry of + and - charge is always conserved and that creates an electrically neutral solar system. Color charge must always add to white, this symmetry cannot be violated.
The keyword is symmetry and uncertainty principle doesn't apply to symmetry. Symmetry is either conserved or it isn't. We either have a universe of only negative or only positive charges, or we have a universe with a balance of charges. The electric force is either symmetrical or it isn't.
Thus far, the discoveries leading to the creation of the standard model came from physicists who assumed the forces of the universe were symmetric. Under these assumptions you get various kinds of particles whose charges balance to zero or balance to white, and experimentally we find that these particles really do exist.
Some sets of symmetries may be more conserved than others. There are 8 types of electrons based on the allowed symmetries. Experimentally we can confer their existence through the decay process of high energy collisions. So a positron CAN exist because if you try to break the symmetry of the electric force, the quantum fields will create a balance by creating a positron that instantly attracts an electron and becomes a photon. For some reason all of the electrons that do exist are not combining with positrons, but all positrons that are created are instantly combined with electrons. If we had the ability to create as many positrons as the mass of the earth, the earth would turn to light. But when we have an earth made of electrons, there inverse does not happen.
Symmetry was somehow violated early in the universe if not "before". We should also consider that symmetry might mean something completely different at extremely high energies when all the forces were unified. The decoupling of the fundamental forces must have induced an asymmetry that lasted no longer than the lifetime of the decoupling event. After decoupling, symmetry of fundamental forces solidified, and the matter and anti-matter annihilated according to their symmetry. But because that decoupling period allowed for symmetry violations, more matter than anti-matter formed.
So, symmetry is never violated except in the early universe. We observe the results of an asymettric early universe evolving into a fully symetric universe as the apparent lack of anti-matter.
I love your humour and ability to explain complex things, great work!
In his later years, Dirac lived in Tallahassee, Florida, USA. He occasionally gave public lectures at Florida State University. I went to one probably very early 1980s. I didn't understand anything. I seem to be in good company: Albert Einstein (yes, that guy again) wrote of Dirac, "I have trouble with Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful." In another letter concerning the Compton effect he wrote, "I don't understand Dirac at all."
•Sabine, you I understand. And that's a good thing. Thank you. 2021-12-07
Of all the physicists I have heard speak on various topics on youtube I have never heard anybody who will just look you in the face and separate what is factual and reliable physics from BS speculation and empty theorizing resting on nothing but flimsy wishful dreaming. She just doesn't beat around the bush. She hates BS and she just calls it like she sees it. She is amazing!
Careful there, she is just saying her opinion on a field that is not hers, so you only get to see what she paints. What someone from the area would say about it?
“It’s a very speculative idea, which is a polite way of saying I believe it’s nonsense” - genius, I adore this channel’s quips.
This channel is the best stand-up comedy ever! I laughed out loud after this sentence :) Love it!
Yet this asymmetry is quite odd…I mean, If you just have light with enough energy, you always get a matter-antimatter-pair, right? So a symmetric amount of both is somewhat reasonably. On the other hand: If all the matter he have today is left from an initial amount, it does not matter if we can create matter-antimatter-pairs, that will eventually annihilate soon.
I love your book, Lost in Math!
I was taught that the reason for a "starting ratio" of exactly 1, between matter and antimatter bosons, was that the starting condition astrophysicists were going with for the big bang was for there to be no bosons at all, just a whole lot of energy packed into a very small space, and we can observe in particle colliders that when you put enough energy into a small enough space, sometimes that energy turns into bosons, but always in a symmetrical way (for example, if a collider makes exactly one positron, then it must necessarily also make exactly one electron). That reasoning still seems to hold up to me, and this video didn't address it (indeed, Sabine strongly implies she's never heard it before, but I'd never before heard the alternate version presented here, despite having encountered the version I describe in many sources, so apparently there's a severe disconnect somewhere in the scientific education and propagation of knowledge on the matter.)
I was also told, more than a decade ago, that the observations that would have revealed antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies, if there were any in the observable universe, had already been done far too thoroughly to reasonably uphold the idea that we just hadn't looked in the right spot yet.
Well, the universe exists so the "starting ratio" probably wasn't 1.
@@theeiszeitmann928 In the case of an infinite universe it's completely possible, though.
@@theeiszeitmann928 In the case of an infinite universe, it's completely possible, though.
@@theeiszeitmann928 That still doesn't obliviate the need for an explanation as to how it came to be something other than 1, nor for an explanation of what's incorrect about the aforementioned reasoning for expecting it to be 1.
Your dry humor rocks! Thanks for making me smile while being so informative.
as i have understood it, all the particles have to come from somewhere, the earliest state of universe had energy in a more “pure”/denser/hotter state than what particles allow.
and the only way we know particles are created is in matter anti-matter pairs.
so the problem is really trying to find ways particles can be created independently from their anti-particles.
i would really appreciate it if you could point out the flaw in this, as i take it i have misunderstood something !
It's easy enough to write down theories that violate matter-antimatter symmetry. Particle physicists just don't like those. It's the same problem as picking an initial value though because we have no other evidence for the creation that you refer to, if it happened. So why deliberately pick a number that does not describe what we observe?
@@SabineHossenfelder fair enough, thanks for the answer
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm still not sure I understand. I thought that according to e=mc2, there had to be equal amounts of matter particles created as the big bang cooled down from pure energy...
So asking why there isn't an equal amount of matter and antimatter isn't reasonable? Kinda sounds like "shut up and calculate".
@@smcic That is only half of the answer E=mc² directly does not need matter-antimatter pairs. Just with E=mc² you can have only matter or only antimatter as you want, but then there is CPT symmetry as a fundamental basis of all quantum theories and those combined then obey the equality of matter and antimatter production and create the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.
Sabine, I've been thinking... (Yes, dangerous thing, I know 😬)
If there was a difference between matter and antimatter in the beginning of the universe, wouldn't it suggest there should be the same difference in the creation of virtual particles in the vacuum?
I mean... Some times it should generate only a matter particles, or maybe 2 matter particles and 1 antimatter particle. In this case, the mass of the universe should grow (and, yes, thermodynamics would be broken!)...
So... I don't really know, but there should be something wrong. 😬
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thermodynamics wouldn't technically be broken, the universe would just *not* be a closed system (as the observable universe isn't). As for the "virtual particle" thing, well... Virtual particles are "virtual" for a reason. They are an useful tool for certain calculations, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually exist (they probably don't). You can model gravity (and most forces, for that matter) using springs, that doesn't mean that gravity is made out of springs
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
@@hyperduality2838 Yeap. But, still, if that's all true the universe shouldn't exist. There should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter and... BOOM. Everything is gone.
But here we are. 😬
@@MCsCreations Something is dual to nothing.
Positive infinity is dual to negative infinity.
The infinite future is connected/identified with the infinite past antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3) -- topology.
Retro-causality or anti-particles would therefore be anti-entropy or syntropy flowing backwards in time from the future.
The arrow of time (entropy) would be opposite or dual for syntropic processes!
Thinking is a syntropic process so your mind is creating anti-particles (reflections or mirrors) of ordinary particles. Your mind is a mirror or dual to the empirical world of physics.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
The mind/soul is dual according to Descartes.
@@MCsCreations Reflections preserve perpendicularity (duality) in hyperbolic geometry.
Reflections or null vectors, light rays conserve duality -- photons are pure energy.
Watch the following series of videos about universal hyperbolic geometry:-
ua-cam.com/video/EvP8VtyhzXs/v-deo.html
Your mind is a reflection or mirror of the real world.
Inside is dual to outside.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions (measurements) into conceptions -- thinking.
Thinking or having thoughts is a syntropic process, you are building models or predictions of the external world.
Duality (energy) creates reality!
Can you make a video on Strangelets? What is your view on this theoretical particle? Shouldn’t everything be or will be strange matter if it converts everything it touches into strange matter? Is this potentially Dark Matter?
Teachers: "There are no dumb questions."
Sabine: "That's not a good question."
Different context require different rules
A question can be faulty without being dumb. (That said, I'm still not convinced by this video that the question is faulty, either.)
Due to oversight, the amount of antimatter was stored as a float16 instead of float32 as the patch to increase the accuracy was only applied to normal matter. Such high numbers were never tested during development, as the clients decision to scale universe up 10^6 times was made very late in the planned production cycle.
Maybe the universe looks like a big magnetic field. Maybe we live in the "North" part of the field where matter is more likely to occur, and there's a whole other "South" part, which apparently we can't see, where anti-matter is more likely to occur. Thanks for the great explanation!
I have wondered this too, but it just doesn't seem to add up.
Oooh, I like that idea!
This region then must be by order of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
@@nenhard Structures larger than the observable universe are not necessarily a problem. For example, according to the current astronomical consensus, a observer late in the stellar era would see one big galaxy and empty space extending beyond that for trillions of light years. In other words, the expansion of the universe will cause the largest scale structures to expand beyond the cosmological event horizon. (I.e. the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so objects are moving out of view.)
The universe only looks homogenous because the largest scale structures have not yet been stretched passed the cosmological event horizon. There is no way of knowing if there is some sort of large scale structure beyond scale the observable universe.
Yes! or we might even live in the southern part!
I thought that when the universe popped into existence at the Big Bang, there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, based on conservation principals, so the question about why there's more matter is not a pseudo-question, it's pretty fundamental. Physics should explain the initial conditions, not just accept them.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
Exactly, that mindset of accepting things as they're doesn't bring physics any good
I'm already eager for the day Sabine will talk about what ants think about anti-matter. It's a shame their opinions are so readily dismissed, and generally just completely neglected, within the physics community.
My understanding was that the motivation to assume an eqaul amount as an initial condition cames from the observation how anti matter production happens in "practice" via pair production. It suggest that everytime antimatter produced, equal amount of matter is produced as well. So as far as I know we have no mechanism which would break this symmetry, and yield just matter or anti matter, yet the universe seems assymetric in this way, hence the mystery.
Equality implies duality.
Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic.
Annihilation is dual to creation, constructors are dual to destructors.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
That introduction tho
"We are going to talk about them today"
😭😂😂😂
Thank you for being a such a thorough and understandable teacher on these matters. Since the universe basically ballooned out from its origin; there need not be a huge amount of interaction across the vastness of space. Thus, local preferences for one type of matter or the other may be viable. And should there be areas lacking matter even more so than normal between these locals, then that may help explain that situation. Of course, present energy releases from the stars making matter-antimatter energy must be too small to explain dark energy, I dare say. In that realm I keep wondering if it is because this universe is meeting "ancient" gravity from universes beyond ours. Though matter of this universe that has ballooned out farther from what we can now note would be so "red-shifted" that that effect would likely be much less. Yet, since anything moving toward a gravity source would note it as being stronger in its force than what was notably produced locally by it; and when moving away from a source, again less. Like the blue and red-shift affect has upon light.
I don't think you understand that the expanding universe isn't all the stuff moving out from a point to occupy more space, like an explosion. It is space itself that is getting scaled bigger. It's not "moving towards" anything.
Sorry to say this, but I am afraid the baryon asymmetry problem IS a REAL problem (=demands justification in our current theoretical framework) and it is somewhat similar to the time symmetry of the (microscopic) fundamental equations of physics and emergence of the arrow of time somehow breaking of that time-reversal symmetry at the system level. The problem is that the Standard Model and its equations are neutral or symmetric with respect to matter/antimatter nature of particles (As a reminder, matter and antimatter are considered different types of oscillation and excitations in the same fundamental complex-valued field of nature in QFT. Having complex components [=two degrees of freedom for field value] is a requirement for having these two kinds of oscillations [or excitations] in a quantum field and for the same reason, real valued fields [like photon field] have only one kind of excitation in them: The usual photons which we know and are their own anti-particles).
And so it becomes a reasonable question to ask that: If your most fundamental laws are exactly symmetric with respect to whether you are dealing with matter or antimatter excitations, where did this baryon asymmetry that we observe in universe came from? Where is all the antimatter. Particularly, what is the mechanism for this specific number 1000000001/1000000000?
So as you see, this is a very real and a very active problem is particle physics (and cosmology). And playing with initial conditions cannot and should not make a problem of this sort go away.
Exactly
The question "Why is there more matter than antimatter" is the same questions as "Why is the fine structure constant ~1/137?"
The matter/antimatter ratio and the fine structure constant are inital conditions of our universe. You would need a theory that explains what happend before the Big Bang (which means a theory of everything, if that is even possible) to solve these questions.
Sabine is arguing that you can’t solve this problem with the current framework because currently all anyone is effectively doing is messing around with the initial conditions.
@@TheCreativeKruemel I think Sabine is trying to claim that this question is in that category in which case her argument makes sense but I’m not convinced.
There definitely could be a future theoretical framework that uncovers some asymmetry and explains the matter anti matter problem. I have much less hope if any that the fine structure constant or electronic charge values could be predicted theoretically.
And if you agree that it’s possible that a future theoretical framework is more likely to explain matter anti matter asymmetry than most of the other standard model constants then it really isn’t a pseudo problem at all.
@@TheArtiKle “Physicists make a living solving problems so they have an incentive to create problems where there aren’t any”
I think Sabines view is much more extreme.
It’s not “you can’t solve this problem with…”
She’s saying there literally isn’t a problem at all.
Well, yeah. Seeking explanations for things we don't understand is what scientists do. If we had asked "where did the sun come from" and stopped at "that's an initial condition, we can't explain it" astronomy would be in a sorry state.
Err. yeah but the point is: what is so fantastic that a RATIO is not one ?? Where is the mystery ? In fact EVERYWHERE we check ratios and they're not "one"... So why THIS ratio would be different ? You can check ANY ratio like why Dogs Count/Cats count is not one... You MUST spend expensive experience because HEY, if we can't understand why there's not symmetry between cats and dogs, we'll never understand "where did the sun come from"...
BTW... So YOU know where did the sun came from ? I'm curious, please explain with maps and charts... It must be hilarious.
@@garryiglesias4074 Why should it be one? Because as far as we can tell, the universe doesn't differentiate between matter and anti-matter.
I have trouble understanding this as well. It’s as though Sabine has _some_ method she uses to estimate the relative worthiness of different research-but it’s not discussed explicitly (here at least), and all the hot takes only hold if one accepts that same underlying framework. I think she had a video on naturalness-and indeed a whole book that sounds like she’d elaborate on this subject. I probably need to read her book to get a more precise understanding of how she ranks research worthiness when subject to limited resources.
@@spencerwilson1407 It would be nice to have a video on it.
From where you got the initial condition? A very good question. .. Well done Dr Sabine, you furnished a new look at Dirac's equation.
"which is a polite way of saying 'i think it's nonsense'".
i do try and keep up with your vids, which are obviously way over my head, but the cutting one-liners are always excellent. i'm still chuckling about the daily mirror readers from a year or so ago.
keep up the great work!
And what if the initial polarity at the big bang was just a coin toss and (almost) no antimatter was created and then annihilated in the first place. Is this version of events even possible?
for all we currently know (which isn't much, really) yes
@Varun Did you even watch the video?
@Varun where can I read more about that
@@SabineHossenfelder 👀 I mean it does look at lot more energy-efficient, but the problem is of course figuring out the very early points in time.
@Varun I need a good dumbed down version in video form because I'm not capable of understanding entirely.
My understanding was that our view of an electron is that it moves forward in time faster than anything else because of how little Mass it has
My hypothesis is that there are other universes outside our local bubble. They are affecting or aeffected our universe in some way at least in the beginning. At little bit of gravitational wave or a couple of extra particles or radiation from somewhere else would make all the difference.
Great! Now, how could we test that hypothesis?
@@santicruz4012 We can't...Not really. We can only extrapolate. Just like we could be certain there must be other suns, planets, galaxies out there. We can be fairly reasonable in saying there are other univeses out there.
As I understood from other popular science channels, initial energy of universe was converted to mass. This should come in equal parts of matter and antimatter (as you described in 4:25). What am I missing?
It should, she has no idea what she is talking about. Following her line of thinking, Einstein's work on fixing Newtons laws was worthless, because Newton just works if you ignore all irregularities (like Baryon Anomaly) hand-waving them away as 'assumptions'...
The "initial energy of the universe was converted to mass" argument assumes two things: (1) that the baryon number of the universe was zero at the beginning of the universe, and (2) that this number was preserved. The problem is that we have NO physical theories that work with the very early universe (prior to 10^-43 seconds) - no form of relativity or quantum mechanics functions properly in this regime. In particular, we have no theoretical basis to believe either assumption (1) or (2), aside from the fact that they feel elegant. There are plenty of other known cases of symmetry-breaking in the (not quite as) early universe - such as the electroweak interaction splitting up - so who's to say this shouldn't occur for the baryon number as well once you go hot and dense enough?
@@KuK137 there's a pretty huge difference between changing the differential equations and changing the initial conditions. Given the same initial conditions, Einstein's equations predict what comes next more accurately than Newton's - that's plenty of evidence that makes it more useful. To be able to do something comparable for the matter/antimatter distinction, we would need to boot up a new universe and predict ahead of time which way the balance will swing.
@@KuK137 Ah, here comes the expert.
Actually this is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding or at least very simplified and short version. Nobody knows what was the "initial" energy, one candidate is hypothetical inflatron field, which is assumed to have driven the initial inflationary expansion of the universe and condensed in to elementary particles. But inflatron field is hypothetical and there is no good theory what it should be. There is something else what makes some to wonder why there is matter antimatter asymmetry, standard model predicts that matter and antimatter is always created in pairs and this was quite recently confirmed in the Brookhaven experiments. From a gamma radiation pairs of electron and positron were created. Always in pairs. So our best theory makes prediction which is so far confirmed, but still the universe doesn't care. Was it just a tiny quantum fluctuation which was rapidly expanded by inflation or there is something else beyond standard model? Sabine could have done better explanatory video instead of bashing.
Here's a simple experiment for anyone who gets confused about the apparent lack of antimatter: 1. Take two colors of skittles or whatever you have in equal amounts. 2. Throw all of it on the floor. 3. Go through them and find all different colored ones that are touching. 4.Remove the pairs and move others nearby one inch away from the pair. 5. Repeat until moving the skittles does not make any new opposite color pairs.
You will end up with the two colors clearly separated.
Now note that simulating gravity by making nearby skittles form pairs will just make the gaps between colors wider as attracting the other color will remove the attraction and push rest of them further apart.
I've always considered the idea of the 2 parallel universes to solve very neatly the "where's the anti-matter?" problem. I.e. at the big-bang 2 universes were created, one made mostly of matter, the other made up mostly of anti-matter. Both have their time vectors aligned in the same direction, but pointing in opposite directions - so rather than "where" is the anti-matter, the question should be "when", because it's before us in time and travelling further and further behind in time. This aligns neatly with the idea of considering anti-matter as matter with the time reversed, literally matter traveling backwards in time
I've had that thought also. Sabine doesn't go into it in this video, but matter and antimatter don't quite follow the same physical laws (i.e. C invariance doesn't exist). Nor do the same physical laws hold in a mirror image universe made of antimatter (CP invariance). But a mirror image antimatter universe running backward in time (CPT invariance) does have to obey the same physical laws (or all of our understanding of particle physics completely falls apart). CPT = charge/parity/time So in one time path from the Big Bang singularity (the one we're on) matter is slightly preferred, but on the other (backwards in time from our perspective, but forwards to our antimatter counterparts) antimatter would be slightly preferred.
What utter nonsense.
Thank you for your physics videos Sabine.
Does matter/antimatter annihilation lead to energy similar to that seen in nuclear fission?
I'm not sure I understand that question because energy is conserved in both processes. Maybe this helps: In a matter-anti-matter annihilation energy is converted into other particles that are mostly elementary (though some of them may form small bound states). The same happens of course in nuclear fission, but in nuclear fission you retain big chunks which are two smaller nuclei. You don't just get elementary particles. So in some sense you could say that in nuclear fission more energy is retained in the remaining mass.
Are you asking about the amount of energy produced, or the type of energy produced? Pound for pound, annihilation is more efficient at producing high energy photons than fission or fusion are.
@@SabineHossenfelder He has a good pedagogical point totally ignored in textbooks or wrongly presented as if E=mc^2 that is true only for p(momentum)=0 for not a "particle" but a system of sth!!!! Practically it works in the laboratory (labs' speed=0 for sure); mass is not additive in relativity theory:the system's mass exceeds the sum of its constituents (well...a "wave" does not have a mass(like an object, it transports only energy; wave/field does not move!!! Only (a)quanta oscillate in the field). (Electromgt) field has a (theoretical)mass that is invariant, but energy E-not from: (E^2 -(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2 (u know or not the majority of textbooks fool poor students on it because authors do not understand its own subject)
a good point arising from textbooks BS explanations also by R.Feynman. I responded below to Rev.S with details; shortly: E=mc^2 is valid only for v,p(momentum)=0,i.e. for the reference system at rest from the universal equation, called 4-momentum: E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2;i.e. m(mass) is invariant but E(energy not!)>Here,this fission reaction happens not In a pure empty space-time but in nucleus surroundings- by analogy with maths: to understand the right use of codomain (of function Y) one cannot forget the boundaries of the domain( every element x of the set X where f(x)=y)
Annihilation is dual to creation, constructors are dual to destructors.
"Sith lords come in pairs" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Equations are used to calculate optimized predictions and predictions are used to track targets, goals and objectives -- this is a syntropic process, teleological.
Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Anti-particles go backwards in time (retro-causality) according to Richard Feynman.
The future is dual to the past, space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Causality is dual to retro-causality.
Forces are synthesized by conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect.
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
"You must unlearn all that you have learned" -- Yoda.
Duality (energy) creates reality.
I always thought, that problem with asymmetry is related to fact that on the beginning (big bang) there was no matter at all and it was created from energy. All process that can create mater from energy creates the same amount of m and am. And that's a problem. Where my understanding is wrong?
"Energy" isn't something in and by itself, it's a property of something. What is it a property of? And how does that thing it's a property of create matter and anti-matter? How can you know if the amount of matter and anti-matter we see today is the only piece of data you have?
@@SabineHossenfelder With due respect Sabine, I think this is a valid question to ask. Obviously the initial conditions can only be inferred from the evidence but I think the big question is what led to the imbalance to begin with, given that we know of no process that can create more matter than antimatter. Unless your hypothesis is that the matter was never created to begin with and had already existed (in the "initial condition")
Energy is a really tricky topic, it would be interesting to see a video about it from you!
If physicists actually thought about this, I guess much of cosmology and particle physics would topple like a poorly-assembled wedding cake.
@@KalebPeters99
"With due respect Sabine, I think this is a valid question to ask."
It is.
@@KalebPeters99 : Let's assume equal numbers of electrons & positrons were initially created, equal numbers of protons & antiprotons, etc. It's well known that protons can "beta decay" to produce positrons (and neutrons & electron neutrinos). (A hypothetical phenomenon, "proton decay," might also cause the proton's positive charge to wind up in a positron.) Similarly, antiprotons can "beta decay" so their negative charge winds up in electrons. Under high energy conditions like during the early universe, the reverse interactions can also be expected, in which the positive charge of a positron can wind up in a proton, or the negative charge of an electron can wind up in an antiproton. I see no reason to expect these random processes would balance exactly equally... it could quickly produce an excess of protons & electrons. Since protons don't annihilate with electrons, this seems like a possible reason why the universe wouldn't necessarily completely annihilate despite beginning with exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
Just because we couldn’t explain how bees fly doesn’t mean we predicted that bees can’t fly. Seems like the same misconception happens with anti-matter.
Same with bumble bees. They are not supposed to fly but they do. I read that it was found out in mid 90-2000 that on their wings small vertices are created due to the irregullarities on the wings. These small vertices practically suck up the bee. Same concept with a golf ball. Why it flies further away than a regular smooth ball?
It's easy to imagine a headline describing it that way though. "Bees Aren't Supposed to be Able To Fly and That's a Problem". It's just the obnoxious, clickbaity way science journalists write these days.
Lacking creativity leads to ... but I better stop here.You are completely right. Same happened to iron in spinach in 20's. A comma typoed lead to Popeye. Lol.
Someone has to say it.
"According to all known laws of aviation..."
Thank you for a marvelous explanation again
Thank you from the entire team!
I always feel better after watching Sabine's videos.
Dear Sabine, thank you very much for that nice, simple argument! I am not a particle physisist but, so far, I understood from lectures that in the early universe there might have been just a unified theory and particles formed by cooling and symmetry breaking which then would result in an equal amount of matter and anti- matter. So, if this is kind of correctly described, my question is: Would you conclude from observation that the matter- antimatter assymetry goes back to kind of assymetric initial condition in unified theory, or would you conclude that the current explanation based on symmetry breaking is wrong. If I would have no assymetric initial condition in unified theory, then the explanation of existence of our world would need explanation by effects happening in the cooling phase when symmetry breaking takes place. Frozen- in flucuations could explain the small deviations from 1. So far the very qualitative description of what I understood from state of research - but may be a have a completely wrong model in mind - hope it is worth your time to comment on this?! Best regards Wolfgang
"If your theory doesn't agree with observation, or experiment, it's wrong. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I think it's not so black&white. Einstein's General Relativity agree with 99.9% of observations, and and fails to explain 0.1%. So is it wrong, or right?
@@ZeeThird I don't think he, or anyone else; would suggest that a theory MUST be 100% perfect and accurate in all instances; I think he was using it as a general rule of thumb..
Funnily enough, Copernicus, Dirac, Einstein, Mendeleev, Szilard, Mendel, Darwin, Galileo, Pasteur, and ton of others didn't listen to this nonsense and somehow their pretty theories, not observations or experiments of the time, were right...
@@KuK137 Did their theories go against those observations though?
@@KuK137 You are confusing "interpretation" with "Observation".
Most of the people you mention derived their theories directly from their observations.
Oh, I know this one! With the pandemic... where have all the parties gone? Find the parties, find the anti-matter!
A very nice and clear explanation. Thank you!
There is a plausible reason to expect the initial matter-antimatter ratio to be one: all matter was created at or after the big bang through pair production.
In fact, the matter-antimatter ratio might really be one. Electrons (and neutrinos) might be antimatter, and protons and neutrons (ie. quarks) might be matter. The asymmetry now becomes an asymmetry in the nucleon and antinucleon (or quark and antiquark) decay rates.
In any case, astrophysicists, particle physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. would all like to find out what happened at the big bang. Do we really wish to denigrate the understanding of nature?
"... it isn't entirely impossible that big chunks of antimatter float around somewhere in the universe." No, not entirely impossible. But it would have to be where we wouldn't observe particle annihilation with interstellar or intergalactic matter. Yes, you point out something like that near the end -- or that such annihilation might have been seen.
Please be more accurate about colleagues' reactions to Dirac's prediction. It wasn't unanimous dismissal. You might also be more accurate about the history leading to Dirac's prediction.
@Cancer McAids Nothing in principle says which is the particle and which is the antiparticle. Particles and antiparticles have opposite charges. The positron could be the particle and the electron the antiparticle.
Where is Uncle Matter?
Nothing matters!
Thank you for demystifying this. I've always had a hard time understanding the obsession with symmetry. I find it more bogus then dark matter in fact.
If you actually listened to Sabine, you'd understand that dark matter is real.
@@EnglishMike i beg to differ
Because everything else is symmetric so far and anything that appears non symmetrical, just has a more fundamental underlying line of symmetry drawn in a different place.
@@jaredf6205 that's pretty arbitrary. And everything really isn't. I think it's more of a selective perception and anthropocentrism then a fundamental law.
@@ilejovcevski79 That's because you don't understand what dark matter is, or isn't. Dark matter is the placeholder name for the phenomenon (yet to be discovered) that causes a very real and readily observed discrepancy between the speed of rotation of galaxies and their observed mass.
It's actually impossible for dark matter to be bogus -- not knowing what it is doesn't change that.
Someone's research just got annihilated.
I looked up the book that's cited as reference for the Wikipedia article on "Baryon asymmetry", and it just states "A natural assumption is that the universe was neutral with respect to all conserved charges, including baryon number."
There's no derivation, no argument. There really seems to be a serious "groupthink" problem in the systems of validation and communication of scientific knowledge.
Thank you Sabine for doing your part!
Thanks for not filling yr videos with pointless, distracting music. The bass drum "theme" is perfectly understated!
I can't get enough of your accent, it's hypnotic, I love it! In addition to the scientific content, of course.
I don't know if it's settled science/physics yet re: gravitational force between matter and antimatter.
Matter-Matter attracts gravitationally.
I assume Anti-Matter-Anti-Matter attracts gravitationally
But perhaps Matter Antimatter repel gravitationally (but attract electrically/magnetically where applicable)
If so, then very early in our Universe life cycle, Matter and AntiMatter would have separated due to gravitational repulsion
Another idea I've read is that the "time arrow" of anti-matter is opposite that of normal matter.
Given that one interpretation of Gravity is that Time "Causes" the gravitational force as mass moves through spacetime worldlines due to time dilation, it would follow that mass with an opposite time vector should appear to repel mass with "normal" (opposing) time vector
Hence, perhaps most Anti Matter exists in the same space as our Matter but with an opposite time vector/phase/etc, similar to time-reversed matter/objects in Tenet, but not normally visible to us
A "time arrow" or "time cone" that is opposite ours doesn't imply that anti-matter there "moves backwards" in its local spacetime, ie if you went to an AntiMatter Universe (Like Kirk/Lazarus in the Alternative Factor) time would appear to run normally for you, like the time reversed people in Tenet. The main result is that it would not be normally visible to us within our "time vector" vs Tenet's interpretation that time reversed mass is visible to non-time reversed perception.
If not normally "visible" due to being out of "time phase" with our matter and normal senses, perhaps the bulk of Anti-Matter is actually the Dark Matter we seek.
That is, there may exist a complete Anti Matter Universe coincident spatially with ours but not necessarily with the same matter/mass (planets/galaxies, etc) placements/distribution, normally not interacting due to time-vector and/or gravitational vector difference, but it's Mass affecting our Matter
Without the misinterpretation of Dirac's therory implying a mechanism to balance matter / anti matter creation, the problem is surely just statistics.
Toss a coin as many times as there were particles created. While the most likely specific outcome is 50/50, the actual chance of that is miniscule when compared to the total of every other outcome.
2 coins: 50/50 - > 0.5 everything else - > 0.5
4 coins: 50/50 - > 0.375 everything else - > 0.625
100 coins: 50/50 - > 0.08 everything else - > 0.92
Fhe real fun part is when we discover a way to determine which polarity is matter and which is anti matter, similar to the oopsie when "they" decided that electrical charge carriers were positively charged.....
This bit about whether the ratio of matter to anti-matter was one or a value slightly larger, puts me in mind of both the teological argument for the existence of God and the anthropic principle. The teological argument is that the intricacy of the universe necessitates its creation by an intelligent being, to which the obvious retort is “compared to what other universe?” While the teological argument is easily logically dismissed, its popularity and persistence does say something significant, I think, about human psychology, and I’ve had a particular theory to account for that, which I won’t rehearse here, for several decades. The anthropic principle attempts to explain why physical laws should be just so as to produce humans. It seems to me that there are two possibilities: either these laws are arbitrary or they are not. In either case, I don’t see that the arrival of humans has any bearing on the matter.
Thank you for clear explanation
I just love your candor and straightforwardness! Keep it up!!
Brilliant! Did not know this. Thank you so much for clarifying!
Thanks for all the work you do.
This is the most wonderful kind of presentation. It answers questions you were asking and other questions you didn't know existed, then raises new questions you didn't know exist! Thanks Dr. Hossenfelder!
I love this lady. She’s super funny, so forthright and does such a good job of presenting all sides of an issue. She’s not afraid to call out made up BS like inflation and dark matter too.
this has quickly became my favourite science channel
very appreciative of these presentations
First time i saw a physicist saying that crap i was like "ok so we once again present assumptions based on guesses as facts". I really like Sabines analogies, like "newtons law dont tell us how many apples are on earth".
I appreciate your balanced, logical approach. We need more such thinking.
Dear Mrs. Hossenfelder, I‘m a physicist myself and as far as I can remember that perfect 1:1 ratio had always been justified with the notion of the very earliest universe containing only energy, i.e. photons, and all matter had to be created through pair production in some way similar to condensation processes in our slightly less energetic earthly environment. And since pair production is per definition perfectly symmetrical so should be the matter to antimatter ratio. That was the reasoning as it had been presented to me as a student and I always found it very easy to follow and compelling. Could you please point out the error or misunderstanding in this reasoning?
Sorry, I'm not Mrs. Hossenfelder, nor a physicist. Seen from outside, I think physicists have a hard time getting out of the sandbox of their time arrow. Btw. I started studying physics as minor subject and stopped precisely with second law of thermodynamics. In quantum mechanics entropy occurs mainly as a trace of some tensor, we set it to zero and are happy, and my intuition clearly said: "This is right". So switched to information tech'. When you consider pseudo random generators and how to modify them to provide real random numbers, the result is: Information is preserved, all generation of information/entropy is virtual. Now to the assumed imbalance of matter/anti-matter: the event horizon of a black hole is a trivial generator of imbalance from the Hawking effect. Another possible answer is hidden behind the question: Why don't we observe the CPT symmetry? In any case there is no contradiction to a global 1:1 ratio
How do you get pair production in an universe with only photons? You would need at least one thing thats not a photon to start stuff