Does the concept of annihilation explain the existence of our universe?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Darken-Sol
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of annihilation in the context of the universe's existence, exploring both philosophical and scientific perspectives. Participants examine how annihilation relates to the presence of matter and antimatter, and the implications for the universe's expansion and structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express philosophical ideas about annihilation and its role in existence, suggesting that everything observed is a result of non-annihilation.
  • One participant explains that annihilation occurs when a particle meets its antiparticle, producing lower-mass particles, and that an imbalance in matter and antimatter led to the current existence of matter.
  • A participant compares the process of annihilation to a game of musical chairs, seeking clarification on the analogy.
  • Another participant questions whether the concept of non-annihilation implies that we are expanding into annihilation, which is challenged by a response clarifying the nature of cosmic expansion according to General Relativity.
  • There is a query about whether annihilation occurs when the universe cools and whether the leftover matter is simply a matter of chance, which receives a nuanced response about the ongoing nature of annihilation and particle creation in the early universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of annihilation, with some agreeing on the basic mechanics while others challenge or seek clarification on the concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the philosophical implications and the nature of cosmic expansion.

Contextual Notes

Participants demonstrate varying levels of understanding of the terms and concepts involved, leading to some oversimplifications and requests for clarification. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of annihilation and its implications that are not fully explored.

Darken-Sol
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
i'm new to phyics and trying to fit it into my head. i just learned of annhilation. as far as i understand everything we observe exists as a result of non-annhilation. a lot of my ideas, at this point, are philosophical. i was hoping to get some info to confirm or deny some of these thoughts. the problem is i am also studying the Tao, and many other things, and they seem to color my thought processes both ways.
 
Space news on Phys.org


Darken-Sol said:
i'm new to phyics and trying to fit it into my head. i just learned of annhilation. as far as i understand everything we observe exists as a result of non-annhilation. a lot of my ideas, at this point, are philosophical. i was hoping to get some info to confirm or deny some of these thoughts. the problem is i am also studying the Tao, and many other things, and they seem to color my thought processes both ways.
Annihilation is a process by which a particle combines with its anti-particle to produce other, lower-mass particles. Eventually, if you have a precisely one anti-particle for every particle, and the temperature is low enough, all of the particles will eventually find a corresponding anti-particle, eventually producing nothing but radiation.

The fact that we have matter still around means that early on, an imbalance between normal matter and anti-matter was created, so that there was ever so slightly more normal matter than anti-matter. When all of the anti-matter found corresponding particles to annihilate with, a tiny bit of normal matter was left behind. And here we are.
 


Chalnoth said:
When all of the anti-matter found corresponding particles to annihilate with, a tiny bit of normal matter was left behind. And here we are.

like musical chairs?
 


Darken-Sol said:
like musical chairs?
Um, I guess, sort of.
 


so if the non-annhilation is us, then is it presumable that we are expanding into the annhilation? forgive me for over simplifying, i don't have all the terms down. i understand if no one wants to explain such simple stuff. could some one atleast give me a push in the right direction? i tried google. i usually end up here or wiki though.
 


Darken-Sol said:
so if the non-annhilation is us, then is it presumable that we are expanding into the annhilation?
No. We aren't expanding into anything. That's just not how General Relativity works. Basically, the expansion is just average distances between objects getting larger with time.

Darken-Sol said:
forgive me for over simplifying, i don't have all the terms down. i understand if no one wants to explain such simple stuff. could some one atleast give me a push in the right direction? i tried google. i usually end up here or wiki though.
This might be a good place to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

It's primarily about the evidence, but is a pretty good description of the big bang theory itself.
 


Do I have this correct? The annihilation comes when the universe gets cold and big enough. After annihilation there could be anti-matter or matter left over and it just so happened to be matter this time and that is why we are here?
 


Smock said:
Do I have this correct? The annihilation comes when the universe gets cold and big enough. After annihilation there could be anti-matter or matter left over and it just so happened to be matter this time and that is why we are here?
Sort of. Annihilation actually happens all the time whenever you have both matter and anti-matter sitting around. It's just that when the universe is so hot that the typical energy of a particle is comparable to its mass-energy, new particle/anti-particle pairs are created in collisions as often as they annihilate.

Once the universe cools sufficiently, new particle/anti-particle pairs stop being created, and the annihilation runs away until there's nothing left to annihilate.

But yes, it could have been either way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K