Is Baryogenesis a Convincing Hypothesis?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Morgo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the hypothesis of baryogenesis, which posits that an asymmetry between matter and antimatter occurred during the early universe. Participants explore the credibility of this hypothesis in comparison to dark matter, addressing the mechanisms behind baryogenesis and the nature of antimatter annihilation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the general consensus on baryogenesis, noting its uncertainty and comparing it to dark matter, which is also not directly observable.
  • Another participant clarifies that baryogenesis refers specifically to the generation of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, not merely the annihilation process, and suggests that the mechanisms behind baryogenesis remain uncertain.
  • It is argued that the annihilation of antimatter with matter is well-supported by established physics, contrasting it with the less understood nature of dark matter.
  • A claim is made that there is scientific consensus regarding the annihilation of antimatter with matter, asserting that this is widely accepted among experts in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and acceptance of baryogenesis as a hypothesis. While some assert a consensus on the annihilation process, others highlight ongoing uncertainties regarding the mechanisms of baryogenesis itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the understanding of baryogenesis is complicated by the lack of consensus on its underlying mechanisms, and the discussion reflects varying levels of confidence in different aspects of the topic.

Morgo
Messages
3
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
Baryogenesis straw poll
Baryogenesis is a hypothesis. I'm curious as to how good an hypothesis it is generally considered? It states that anti-matter disappeared around the beginning of Universe formation, its not currently visible or apparently non detectable, so it must have gone.

Dark Matter is also not visible, and only vaguely detectable by gravitational proxy but it is considered 'still there'. Its location is uncertain, a locational uncertainty not allowed for in Baryogenesis.

How convincing is Baryogenesis then? I'm not particularly interested in debating it, its a hypothesis- its uncertainty is explicit, I'm only interested in a straw poll of its general consensus.
 
Space news on Phys.org
First of all, what you describe is not baryogenesis. It is the final stages of the anti-matter annihilating away with matter, leaving only the surplus of matter around. Baryogenesis as such is the generation of the asymmetry between matter and antimatter, for which we do not know which the correct mechanism is. It could be some form of baryogenesis, leptogenesis, or (rather unsatisfyingly) an initial condition of the Universe.

As for what you describe, the annihilation of matter and anti-matter, it is on a significantly stronger footing than whatever dark matter model one discusses. It is based solely on applying well-known and understood physics to the early Universe. When the Universe was much hotter than today, even with an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter of the correct size, the thermal equilibrium distributions of both would have been very very very similar. It is just standard physics.

Dark matter is tricker because we do not know the particular mechanism behind it and it interacts very much weaker than matter and anti-matter would interact.

The location of dark matter is also not uncertain. We know perfectly well where it needs to be. What we do not know is what it is made of. That is very different. In the case of anti-matter, we know what exact properties it needs to have.
 
And yes, there is scientific consensus about the annihilation of antimatter with matter. There really is nobody in the field that understands the mechanics behind (basic particle physics and thermodynamics) that doubts this. A straw poll on a random internet forum is not going to change this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
The question has been answered so this thread is closed.

As with all such thread closures we can reopen the thread if there is more to say on the subject and based on peer-reviewed publication - PM any mentor to ask.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
807
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
908