Are We Real? Universe Baryons, Photons, Asymmetry

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter spidey
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of baryon asymmetry, the relationship between baryons and photons in the universe, and philosophical inquiries into the nature of reality. Participants explore theoretical implications, unresolved questions in physics, and the ontological status of existence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Philosophical inquiry
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the calculation of the ratio of baryons to photons, suggesting a need for clarity on the theories addressing baryon asymmetry.
  • Another participant references Descartes' philosophical assertion "I think, therefore I exist" in response to the question of reality.
  • Some participants assert that the baryon asymmetry issue remains unresolved, with CP-violation potentially playing a role, while clarifying that it is not related to the total electric charge of the universe.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of reality, with one participant suggesting that if the universe is a model, it does not diminish its reality.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of noise cancellation as an analogy for questioning the reality of sound, emphasizing the complexity of defining "real."
  • Participants note that there can be multiple empirically consistent ontologies that may seem mutually exclusive, highlighting the distinction between theoretical constructs and empirical content.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of reality and the implications of baryon asymmetry. While some agree on the unresolved status of baryon asymmetry, the philosophical discussions about reality remain contested and subjective.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on complex concepts such as CP-violation and the implications of symmetries in physics, but does not resolve the underlying assumptions or definitions related to reality and existence.

spidey
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
I heard that for one baryon there are 10^9 photons exists in this universe..i want to know how did they calculate? is there any theory which solves baryon asymmetry with satisfaction Or is it still a mystery? why there should be equal number of matter and antimatter? is it to make the total electric charge of universe to zero? if so,then we should also do this for all conservation laws and say that energy,momentum etc..are also zero...and if everything is zero,then how we came to existence and this pushes me to ask a question ARE WE(UNIVERSE) REAL?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I can take the philosophical question first. Descartes: "I think, therefore I exist"
 
The baryon asymmetry issue remains unresolved in the strictest sense. We can be pretty confident that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP-violation" has something to do with it. No the baryon asymmetry issue has nothing to do with making the total electric charge of universe to zero. It is a serious question about what changes and don't change (symmetries) under the laws of physics given different kinds of transformations. For instance if you watched a movie that was filmed through a mirror is there any way for you to tell from the movie alone? This mirror is the P, or parity symmetry, referred to in "CP-violations". I'll leave it to you to look into CP-violations and CPT-symmetry if you are so inclined.

To the philosophical question "ARE WE(UNIVERSE) REAL" sounds as pointless as asking what if it's not. Suppose this universe is a model on someones computer. Perhaps the only thing modeled is our thoughts making our experiences the only thing actually there. Does that make us any less real? malawi_glenn's quote of Descartes remains just as valid no matter how you slice or dice the ontology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my_wan said:
The baryon asymmetry issue remains unresolved in the strictest sense. We can be pretty confident that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP-violation" has something to do with it. No the baryon asymmetry issue has nothing to do with making the total electric charge of universe to zero. It is a serious question about what changes and don't change (symmetries) under the laws of physics given different kinds of transformations. For instance if you watched a movie that was filmed through a mirror is there any way for you to tell from the movie alone? This mirror is the P, or parity symmetry, referred to in "CP-violations". I'll leave it to you to look into CP-violations and CPT-symmetry if you are so inclined.

To the philosophical question "ARE WE(UNIVERSE) REAL" sounds as pointless as asking what if it's not. Suppose this universe is a model on someones computer. Perhaps the only thing modeled is our thoughts making our experiences the only thing actually there. Does that make us any less real? malawi_glenn's quote of Descartes remains just as valid no matter how you slice or dice the ontology.


I didnt ask the last question in philosophical background..what i mean is if the total energy of universe is zero then how can we say universe is real..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I should had realized the implicit ontology from context. However, it remains a purely ontological question and not a physical one. Consider noise cancelation. You can take a sound and create another sound 180 degrees out of phase. When you combine them there is no sound at all. Does that mean the sound wasn't real in the first place? This begs the question of what exactly you mean by real. The fact of the matter is that there can be many physically (empirically) consistent ontologies that appear logically mutually exclusive. This is why modern theory deals in symmetries, not in some ontological notion of realness. Many of the crank ideas in science are built upon some notion of an ultimate ontological truth rather than an actual physical principle. Even in the mainstream the distinction between theoretical constructs and empirical content sometimes gets conflated.
 
my_wan said:
Ok, I should had realized the implicit ontology from context. However, it remains a purely ontological question and not a physical one. Consider noise cancelation. You can take a sound and create another sound 180 degrees out of phase. When you combine them there is no sound at all. Does that mean the sound wasn't real in the first place? This begs the question of what exactly you mean by real. The fact of the matter is that there can be many physically (empirically) consistent ontologies that appear logically mutually exclusive. This is why modern theory deals in symmetries, not in some ontological notion of realness. Many of the crank ideas in science are built upon some notion of an ultimate ontological truth rather than an actual physical principle. Even in the mainstream the distinction between theoretical constructs and empirical content sometimes gets conflated.

ok i accept that we are real...
 

Similar threads

Graduate Baryon asymmetry and conservation of charge
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
High School CPT asymmetry question, in regards to recent experiment@CERN
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Baryon number nonconservation in the early universe
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is proton decay considered in neutron star models (and LHC)?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does CP Violation Relate to Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry in the Universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Ripping apart baryons at the end of the universe creating new particles?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate The paradox of Hawking radiation - is matter infinitely compressible?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
9K
Graduate Baryon Asymmetry explained by MWI
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Matter-antimatter asymmetry - a simple explanation?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Graduate Antilepton excess of leptogenesis and sphalerons
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K