Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How all matter antimatter particles annihilated after bigbang

  1. May 7, 2012 #1
    how all the infinitesimally small sub atomic particles created after Bigbang came across to annihilate with their anti particles in the vastness of universe ? even in accelerators they rely on probability only a few particles collide , so why do people assume all matter particles annihilated and what's left now is only the one billionth of matter that had created in bigbang:confused: how does 100% annihilation take place in open space
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 7, 2012 #2
    I'm pretty sure that there is no solid theory today that will answer your question. It's still a big problem, IIRC.
     
  4. May 7, 2012 #3

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    but the vastness was tiny! :smile:
     
  5. May 7, 2012 #4

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It was not "open space" back then. It was much much denser than space is now.
     
  6. May 8, 2012 #5
    i understand that theory -at very early stage whole universe was incredibly dense and was smaller than an atom then all of a sudden it expanded exponentially

    particles and antiparticles created and collided in such miniscule space tinier than an atomic nucleus - end of story . i mean if that was the case then how much matter would be left out ? you have to bear in mind that all the stuff we see today are made up of that remnant 1%

    points:
    matter anti matter (fundamental particles ) first created doesn't wobble or dawdle in their way they travel straight forward near light speed so hypothesizing them annihilating 100% is not very affirmative

    universe might have emerged from incredibly dense state that we can surmise judging from galaxies drifting away from Milky way ,if there are going away from us now then once they were all close together ..but beyond that i guess is still beyond understanding
    origin of matter and mass

    i don't really understand how people blatantly believe 100% annihilation took place it is in cerns website

    education.web.cern.ch/education/Chapter2/Teaching/atm.html
     
  7. May 8, 2012 #6
    If indeed the cosmic egg was incredibly dense it wasn't dense with matter since matter had not been created yet. Matter was formed after the Big Bang occured.
     
  8. May 8, 2012 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In theory, matter did not arise until after inflation. The universe was somewhat sizable at that point. The CPT violation issue remains, however, an unsolved mystery.
     
  9. May 8, 2012 #8
    yep, CP violation is a fact, but the common notion is that some matter (1% of created in BB) left out over anti matter ...that is somewhat confusing,idk how physicist come up with that 1% math :confused:

    particle and their antiparticles was created in same quantity that's fine ..but how could we postulate that all of that particles collided..we don't have observational evidence of anti matter but our understanding is not wholesome
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  10. May 8, 2012 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Really? No observational evidence of antimatter? What do we use in PET scans? Marbles?

    Please note that mindless speculation such as this is in direct violation of the PF Rules.

    Zz.
     
  11. May 8, 2012 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    There is no theory that says it was small, just that it was dense. It might have been infinite. Saying "smaller than an atom" is just nonsense.

    As several folks here have pointed out, your understanding of cosmology is very poor. I suggest you read some actual physics rather than making stuff up. The FAQ section in the cosmology sub-forum would be a really good place to start.
     
  12. May 8, 2012 #11
    Chronos,

    When you postulate the possibility of the presence of matter before the BB then you create the burden of explaining how that matter arose and needlessy complicate things. This goes against the Occam's Razor principle.
     
  13. May 8, 2012 #12

    bapowell

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think he's saying that.
     
  14. May 8, 2012 #13
    what i mean is there's no observational evidence for antimatter in SPACE,there's no antimatter structures like stars&planets
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  15. May 8, 2012 #14
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRABXZ1nYeAmsNezSn-1EjeWUH0-EefGxJ_FNaDfyV3xzl9pAXL.jpg



    read this http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1326.html

    the above site is run by NASA scientist
     
  16. May 8, 2012 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Says who?

    Zz.
     
  17. May 8, 2012 #16

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

  18. May 8, 2012 #17
    i'll have to say bye to this forum i didn't read PF RULES




    kma
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2012
  19. May 8, 2012 #18
    What is he saying exactly and in detail. I mean apart from the superficially obvious.
     
  20. May 8, 2012 #19

    bapowell

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    He's saying that matter arose after inflation, not before the big bang as you interpreted it.
     
  21. May 8, 2012 #20
    I did not interpret that he said matter definitely arose before the BB. However his qualifier "theoretically", does seem to make room for that possibility. So based on that I adressed the possibility that he was perhaps considering it a possibility of sorts.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How all matter antimatter particles annihilated after bigbang
Loading...