How all matter antimatter particles annihilated after bigbang

[hitchiker]

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 how does 100% annihilation take place in open space

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I'm pretty sure that there is no solid theory today that will answer your question. It's still a big problem, IIRC.

 

[tiny-tim]

how all the infinitesimally small sub atomic particles created after Bigbang came across to annihilate with their anti particles in the vastness of universe ?

but the vastness was tiny!

 

[Drakkith]

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 how does 100% annihilation take place in open space

It was not "open space" back then. It was much much denser than space is now.

 

[hitchiker]

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

 

[Radrook]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[hitchiker]

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

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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

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.

 

[phinds]

i understand that theory -at very early stage whole universe was incredibly dense and was smaller than an atom ...

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.

 

[Radrook]

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.

 

[bapowell]

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.

I don't think he's saying that.

 

[hitchiker]

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.

what i mean is there's no observational evidence for antimatter in SPACE,there's no antimatter structures like stars&planets

 

[hitchiker]

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.

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

the above site is run by NASA scientist

 

[ZapperZ]

what i mean is there's no antimatter in SPACE .

Says who?

Zz.

 

[phinds]

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

the above site is run by NASA scientist

Yes, so what?

You are, perhaps, confusing the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE with "the universe". Again, read some cosmology.

 

[hitchiker]

i'll have to say bye to this forum i didn't read PF RULES

kma

 

[Radrook]

I don't think he's saying that.

What is he saying exactly and in detail. I mean apart from the superficially obvious.

 

[bapowell]

What is he saying exactly and in detail. I mean apart from the superficially obvious.

He's saying that matter arose after inflation, not before the big bang as you interpreted it.

 

[Radrook]

He's saying that matter arose after inflation, not before the big bang as you interpreted it.

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.

 

[bapowell]

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.

Huh? You said,

When you postulate the possibility of the presence of matter before the BB...

I'm saying that he made no such postulation. His qualifier "theoretically" is supposed to mean "according to theory" which I suspect is intended to indicate that, technically, matter was generated after inflation, which is after the big bang. If his statement leaves room for its interpretation as asserting that matter was created before the big bang, then it leaves room to be interpreted as saying virtually anything.

It's not a big deal. If you misinterpreted something, it's not the end of the world. No need to belabor the point.

 

[Radrook]

Huh? You said,I'm saying that he made no such postulation. His qualifier "theoretically" is supposed to mean "according to theory" which I suspect is intended to indicate that, technically, matter was generated after inflation, which is after the big bang. If his statement leaves room for its interpretation as asserting that matter was created before the big bang, then it leaves room to be interpreted as saying virtually anything.

It's not a big deal. If you misinterpreted something, it's not the end of the world. No need to belabor the point.

1. You are insultingly and presumptuously attributing a character flaw to me that doesn't t exist.

2. I am using the pronoun "you" in the same general non-personal manner that I assume he employs it when he comments on my views.

3. You are reaching an unjustifiable conclusion. His statement does not allow for everything or anything interpretations as you claim because the subject matter is clearly unambiguous.

4. No point is being belabored by me. From where I stand you seem to be belaboring imaginary issues.

5. The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt. Who knows? Maybe he does have ideas as to how matter could have been present before the BB. Why don't you let him respond himself so we can find out?

 

[bapowell]

1. You are insultingly and presumptuously attributing a character flaw to me that doesn't t exist.

Overreact much?

2. You are ignoring the qualifier "if" which introduces hypotheticals.

There is no "if" anywhere in your statement.

Radrook, if you are supposing that I am a turtle, then you are greatly mistaken.

3. You are reaching an unjustifiable conclusion. His statement does not allow for everything or anything interpretations as you claim because the subject matter is clearly unambiguous.

Clearly unambiguous. Which is why you totally didn't get it.

EDIT: I see you've changed your 4 theses to 5, and swapped out your erroneous point regarding "if" to some semantic distinction regarding pronouns. Except that this is not how you used "you", since you directed your comment directly to Chronos. If you meant for your comment to be an isolated observation not directly related to any prior comment, then it did not at all come across this way as written.

 

[bapowell]

5. The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt. Who knows? Maybe he does have ideas as to how matter could have been present before the BB. Why don't you let him respond himself so we can find out?

Not at all. Unless you take a "theory" to be a vague set of untested guesses. Which is not at all what a scientific theory is.

He might think that matter was created before the big bang. He might also think that fairies live in his garden (sorry Chronos, sake of argument.) My point is simply that your assertion followed from a statement that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ASSERTION.

If you think there some connection/equivalence between "before big bang" and "after inflation", then state it. Otherwise, we'll chalk this one up to simple misunderstanding.

 

[Radrook]

Not at all. Unless you take a "theory" to be a vague set of untested guesses. Which is not at all what a scientific theory is.

He might think that matter was created before the big bang. He might also think that fairies live in his garden (sorry Chronos, sake of argument.) My point is simply that your assertion followed from a statement that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ASSERTION.

If you think there some connection/equivalence between "before big bang" and "after inflation", then state it. Otherwise, we'll chalk this one up to simple misunderstanding.

1. I do not take theories to be vague untested sets of guesses because my formal education teaches me otherwise. Please stop asssumiung or insinuating ignorance. It is time-wasting and can become gradually a bit annoying. Please remember that I could just as easily assume the same about you.

2. It is a well known fact that the whole sequence of events is causally connected. You disagree with that? If so, why? If so, please show at what point one stage became disconnected from the other.3. I made no assertion. I merely probed to see what his opinion really is because he planted a doubt either consciously or unconcsiously via the use of the word theoretically and yu took umbrage.

As I stated before and as is well-known to anyone familiar with the English language, the term can also be used to connote uncertainty. Therefore, I am fully justified in suspecting that such might be the case and have a right to see if it is or not. I mean, I could easily make this thread into the rhetorical use of words one but this is not a forum for such purposes. However, if you wish, I can provide you with links where the connotative meaning of the word theoretically is explained and declared legitimate.

 

[Chronos]

Apparently there is some confusion about the inflationary timeline. This is the one I had in mind - http://burro.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_history.html

 

[bapowell]

1. I do not take theories to be vague untested sets of guesses because my formal education teaches me otherwise. Please stop asssumiung or insinuating ignorance. It is time-wasting and can become gradually a bit annoying. Please remember that I could just as easily assume the same about you.

You define precisely what you mean by "theory" here:

The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt.

Self-contradiction seems to be a recurring theme with you.

2. It is a well known fact that the whole sequence of events is causally connected. You disagree with that? If so, why? If so, please show at what point one stage became disconnected from the other.

I'm by no means disputing causality, merely pointing out that exchanges of the form:

Person 1: Statement A is true
Person 2: Person 1, if you suppose that Statement B is true, then such and such...

are incomprehensible and teetering on the edge of illogical. Person 2 in this exchange is either misunderstanding what Person 1 is saying (misunderstood that they claim the truth of Statement A not B), or they are bringing up Statement B for the first time in the discussion and merely pointing out to Person 1 such and such. The former makes sense, the latter is unusual and liable to lead to confusion. Which is why I asked you what the connection is between Statement A, that "matter was created after inflation", and Statement B that, "matter was created before the big bang". If there is no connection, then you could just as easily have said "I like pineapples" in response to Chronos.

 

[Radrook]

You define precisely what you mean by "theory" here:

Self-contradiction seems to be a recurring theme with you.

I'm by no means disputing causality, merely pointing out that exchanges of the form:

Person 1: Statement A is true
Person 2: Person 1, if you suppose that Statement B is true, then such and such...

are incomprehensible and teetering on the edge of illogical. Person 2 in this exchange is either misunderstanding what Person 1 is saying (misunderstood that they claim the truth of Statement A not B), or they are bringing up Statement B for the first time in the discussion and merely pointing out to Person 1 such and such. The former makes sense, the latter is unusual and liable to lead to confusion. Which is why I asked you what the connection is between Statement A, that "matter was created after inflation", and Statement B that, "matter was created before the big bang". If there is no connection, then you could just as easily have said "I like pineapples" in response to Chronos.

World English Dictionary
lacking practical applicatin r existence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theoretical

 

[ZapperZ]

This thread is done since we are no longer sticking to the topic.

Zz.