Origin of Matter: Theory Explaining Creation

[twofish-quant]

It's not that hard to create matter. Particle accelerators do it all the time. If you have enough energy in one place, you start creating matter/anti-matter pairs. It's easy to do, and I think you can probably create something in your garage that creates matter/anti-matter.

The mystery is not how matter gets created. We see that all of the time. The mystery is how the early universe created slighty more matter than anti-matter.

 

[mquirce]

i am a layman that is quite ignorant,but i think Star thrower reason has sense. Somebodi think that electron is a point. f so it has to be a black hole : (G*M /0 )^0.5 is without meaning. Electron is not a point. Electron has a radius: Compton radius> Who know ? Maybe electron is a particle with two sub psrticles. Photon may be too a particle (isn't it?) created by two subparticles. Photon is a creation from electron and positron ( which may be too two subparticles of Star thrower). And why not particle that stand in the base of what ever particles is not a Planck dimention particle?
The energy is considered the sourse of particles. One think that temperature is energy that creates the particles. But isn't temperature the result of el.mag. waves ala DE Vin?
A lot of speculations isn't contemporare physics?

 

[Drakkith]

A lot of speculations isn't contemporare physics?

No. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that electrons are point particles made up of no further particles. Your entire post is simple nonsense, as is Starthrowers.

Electron is not a point. Electron has a radius: Compton radius> Who know ?

From wikipedia on compton radius:

In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to its electrostatic potential energy - not taking quantum mechanics into account. We now know that quantum mechanics, indeed quantum field theory, is needed to understand the behavior of electrons at such short distance scales, thus the classical electron radius is no longer regarded as the actual size of an electron

But isn't temperature the result of el.mag. waves ala DE Vin?

No, temperature is a measurement of the average amount of energy a number of particles have, usually as random direction kinetic energy. The correlation of temperature with EM waves is only due to black body radiation. In other words, objects at certain temperatures emit certain frequency radiation. The lower the temperature the lower the frequency of the EM radiation emitted.

Photon is a creation from electron and positron ( which may be too two subparticles of Star thrower).

An annihilation of an electron and positron results in the creation of TWO OR MORE gamma ray photons at lower energy collisions. If you were correct then that would mean that each positron and electron would be made up of one photon, which is impossible. This would violate charge conservation and a multitude of other observed laws.

The energy is considered the sourse of particles. One think that temperature is energy that creates the particles.

Temperature IS a measure of energy.

Somebodi think that electron is a point. f so it has to be a black hole : (G*M /0 )^0.5 is without meaning.

No it doesn't. More from wikipedia, from the point particle article:

In quantum mechanics, there is a distinction between an elementary particle (also called "point particle") and a composite particle. An elementary particle, such as an electron, quark, or photon, is a particle with no internal structure, whereas a composite particle, such as a proton or neutron, has an internal structure (see figure). However, neither elementary nor composite particles are spatially localized, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The particle wavepacket always occupies a nonzero volume. For example, see atomic orbital: The electron is an elementary particle, but its quantum states form three-dimensional patterns.

Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket is in fact a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure, not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero.

For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the size of an electron is less than 10-18 m.[6] This is consistent with the expected value of exactly zero. (This should not be confused with the classical electron radius, which, despite the name, is unrelated to the actual size of an electron.)

 

[maxfl38]

The current theory of matter being formed in stars and supernovas describes how we get the elements that make up the universe very well.

The decay of something is based on "chance". This is why it's called a Half Life. Uranium-238 has a half life of around 4 billion years. So at this point in time there should be ABOUT half as much uranium on Earth as there was when the Earth first formed. The other half is still around and is what we dig up and use.

It's important to remember that when Uranium decays it is gone. It turns into another element. The "state of decay" you speak of simply doesn't make any sense. A uranium atom cannot half decay. The time it takes for an atom to start decaying and then finish is extremely short. (On the scale of fractions of nanoseconds) So when you look at an atom of uranium, you will either see it as not decayed or as already decayed.

Not to mention the fact that the sun doesn't produce enough energy to "make" matter. The hydrogen is being fused together to form Helium in the core, but this is simply taking existing nuclei and forcing them together. And also, while you cannot create or destroy energy, you CAN create and destroy matter. Particle colliders do this all the time. The energy from the high speed particles is transformed into matter. So energy is always conserved, but matter is not.

If you are not able to mimic (sustained)the gravity forces that sustain a sun, how can you determine it's capacities ? According to theories of the sun's life being that of "consumers", should'nt the universe be shrinking and becoming depleted ?

 

[Darken-Sol]

this may be circular logic but, it seems there was a potential for matter to exist.(space maybe?) even when nothing did. even with the odds stacked horribly in the favor of nothing ever happening it would still happen. (n:1) and with no time, no changes occurring, it would happen instantly. creating time, the universe(s), and more potentials(future). past and future are then just possible configurations of a universe that realized it should exist. the only moment it is aware of, i guess would be this present moment. go ahead call me a crack pot.

 

[qwertyhog]

i am new to this, and i don't know much about anything. BUT. is it possible that since we look into space, light hasn't reached us yet and we are looking at the origin? dark matter is energy from the past left over from the origin? if we can create energy with matter, couldn't energy become matter? could dark matter be energy?

 

[Drakkith]

i am new to this, and i don't know much about anything. BUT. is it possible that since we look into space, light hasn't reached us yet and we are looking at the origin?

No, we see the effects of dark matter at the same time we see the light, meaning that it exists and doesn't radiate or interact with light.

dark matter is energy from the past left over from the origin? if we can create energy with matter, couldn't energy become matter? could dark matter be energy?

No, energy isn't "something". It is a quantity we observe things like matter and light to have. You cannot have energy just floating around in space.

 

[bill alsept]

Is there any theory offering an explination as to the origin of all matter? I'm not talking about the big bang, but where the matter which went bang originiated from.

And I know the one theory about 10 dimensions and all the matter going into 4 and the others collapsing, but I'm more looking for how it was created.

That’s the same as asking where did god come from. There was a time we thought the Earth was flat and that we were the center of everything. Later we learned there was more to our world and that we were not the center. Our galaxy was not the whole universe and someday will most likely find the observable universe is just a small portion.
Eventually we may find that there are other universes just like we found there were other galaxies.
To accurately answer your question at this point the best we could say is that matter comes from the same place that all the other universes got theirs.

 

[skydivephil]

I am an astronomy student and my textbook has an interesting explanation. The textbook is:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0716795647/?tag=pfamazon01-20
The explantion they have is that virtual partciles pairs are created all the time out of a vacuum, but they spontaneously go back into the vacuum in the very short time period given by Heisenbergs uncertainity relation between energy and time.
However during inflation the space between these virtual particles is streched so rapidly they are unable to find each other to re anhilate and hence they are turned into real particles.
This is a superb textbook on astronomy, if you get hold of it you will see this explanation on the chapter on "The Early Universe"

 

[skydivephil]

I just noticed Physics. org publsihed an article today, with the same mechanism as I described above:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-early-universe-rapid-expansion-weird.html
There are some other possible mechanisms , for example if i remember right VSl theories imply a violation of conservation, but I think inflation is the domainant paradigm.

 

[Drakkith]

I am an astronomy student and my textbook has an interesting explanation. The textbook is:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0716795647/?tag=pfamazon01-20
The explantion they have is that virtual partciles pairs are created all the time out of a vacuum, but they spontaneously go back into the vacuum in the very short time period given by Heisenbergs uncertainity relation between energy and time.
However during inflation the space between these virtual particles is streched so rapidly they are unable to find each other to re anhilate and hence they are turned into real particles.
This is a superb textbook on astronomy, if you get hold of it you will see this explanation on the chapter on "The Early Universe"

Interesting. I had always read and heard it was simply because photons interacted and produced matter and antimatter pairs.

 

[skydivephil]

Indeed the description in the textbook is not one I've found in many other sources so its nice to see it confirmed on Physics.org today.

 

[fieldOD]

It is my understanding that it is factually, scientifically impossible for matter to come into existence from nothing. An explanation could be given, but not enough time and space here. matter had to have a beginning - then a big bang could be possible.

 

[Mark M]

It is my understanding that it is factually, scientifically impossible for matter to come into existence from nothing. An explanation could be given, but not enough time and space here. matter had to have a beginning - then a big bang could be possible.

Really? Please share the scientific evidence for this that makes it impossible.

Also, the big bang didn't just 'happen' after something. We understand that the big bang was the hot, dense, beginning of our universe, not some kind of explosion. It was the state the ENTIRE universe was is in, everywhere. We conclude this because of our observations of homogeneity and isotropy. Space then expands from every point, cooling the universe, and allowing dense regions of gas to be driven apart and develop into galaxies.

God Krsna created it, and that's a fact.

It's generally not a good idea to ramble like this on a serious physics forum.

 

[DeepSpace9]

Is it fact, that there was also anti matter particles that destroyed most of the matter an the instant of the bang?

Bein as the matter out numbered the anti matter 2:1 and that is why we see all the matter we see today?

 

[Kristiandhd]

I Think that maybe space-time has always been around, then at one moment all the matter in the universe in the form of hydrogen atoms appeared, which coincidentally matches the word singularity since a hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 neutron lol

if space-time is infinite and it was empty before, possibilities are happening at all times, though at first there were maybe just two, one which is the least conceivable to use which is that matter came from nothing then an infinite amount of possibilities were nothing happens and space-time stays empty. and since as far as we know space-time is infinite eventually that one possibility occurred, from where all that we know now came from.

 

[Chronos]

Berman posits the universe has a modest amount of 'spin' that could account for matter anti-matter asymmetry - http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4160. This line of thinking suggests the possibiltiy of an 'anti-universe', but, is otherwise reasonably well conceived.

 

[Drakkith]

I Think that maybe space-time has always been around, then at one moment all the matter in the universe in the form of hydrogen atoms appeared, which coincidentally matches the word singularity since a hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 neutron lol

Subatomic particles existed long before recombination. And most hydrogen has a single proton with no neutrons.

 

[Kristiandhd]

Subatomic particles existed long before recombination. And most hydrogen has a single proton with no neutrons.

ohh sorry i meant a proton and an electron. and we can't know that for sure. because we don't know whether matter came into existence even at its most basic form like you said, as sub atomic particle or anything more basic then that, which we haven't seen. or if has always been there.
and maybe hydrogen was what first appeared, including in itself the sub atomic particle, or sub atomic particles came from nothing then to later create the elements.
its unknown, don't be so sure of your statements because no one knows in this field with 100% certainty of anything. that's why its discuss so much and it will most likely always be discussed in the hope of finding out everything about everything, which is most likely impossible but it doesn't mean we won't try.

 

[Drakkith]

ohh sorry i meant a proton and an electron. and we can't know that for sure. because we don't know whether matter came into existence even at its most basic form like you said, as sub atomic particle or anything more basic then that, which we haven't seen. or if has always been there.

We have extremely good evidence that matter existed as subatomic particles and then combined to form neutral atoms. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the biggest piece of evidence for this. Extrapolating back using our current known laws it can be shown that the universe existed as a very hot very dense state where particle-antiparticle pairs were created from EM radiation only to annihilate back to radiation soon after creation. The only reason this stopped was because expansion caused the universe to cool below the temperature necessary to create particle-antiparticle pairs.

and maybe hydrogen was what first appeared, including in itself the sub atomic particle, or sub atomic particles came from nothing then to later create the elements.
its unknown, don't be so sure of your statements because no one knows in this field with 100% certainty of anything. that's why its discuss so much and it will most likely always be discussed in the hope of finding out everything about everything, which is most likely impossible but it doesn't mean we won't try.

Please, learn a bit about the standard model of Cosmology before claiming that we don't know.

 

[Mark M]

Is it fact, that there was also anti matter particles that destroyed most of the matter an the instant of the bang?

There was no 'bang'. The 'big bang' refers to the hot, dense state the entire universe was in. Not some kind of explosion from a point in space. The entire universe was filled with a hot soup of radiation and plasma. As space expanded from every point, everything cooled, radiation redshifted, and plasma became gas. More dense regions of gas pulled in the less dense regions with gravity, which then became dense enough to halt expansion within them. The space in between these clouds continued to expand, separating them. They then developed into galaxies.

That's the (very) general picture.

Bein as the matter out numbered the anti matter 2:1 and that is why we see all the matter we see today?

I'm not sure where you got this number. It's much more ridiculously small than 2 to 1. Kolb/Turner estimate there were 30 million and one quarks for every 30 million anti-quarks.

See this page:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/baryogenesis.html

 

[Naty1]

comment: lots of goofy posts in this thread; Drakkith's seem on target.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0716795647/?tag=pfamazon01-20

However during inflation the space between these virtual particles is streched so rapidly they are unable to find each other to re anhilate and hence they are turned into real particles.

This explanation does give some good insights.

Here is a closely related one I saved from another discussion in these forums:

There is not a definite line differentiating virtual particles from real particles — the equations of physics just describe particles (which includes both equally). The amplitude that a virtual particle exists interferes with the amplitude for its non-existence; whereas for a real particle the cases of existence and non-existence cease to be coherent with each other and do not interfere any more. In the quantum field theory view, "real particles" are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields

Moving, on and back to the OP:

Is there any theory offering an explination as to the origin of all matter? I'm not talking about the big bang, but where the matter which went bang originiated from.

To restate my question more clearly:
Where did the material/energy which went "bang" in the big bang come from?

No one knows with reasonable certainty what started the big bang, nor cyclic bangs if they exist, for that matter. It is extremely unlikely that any matter was at the start of any bangs...somehow radiation/energy was created...likely space and perhaps time too. Perhaps a random statistical quantum fluctuation started our universe, perhaps something else. All our models start just AFTER such a start.

One good discussion about particles/matter in these forums is here:

What is a particle:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=386051
and another:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=590798

There are three ways one can 'produce' particles: accelerate yourself, accelerate spacetime, or accelerate a cosmological horizon!

One of our resident experts made this observation which I like because it also provides insights:

Matter is that which has localized mass-energy, while spacetime does not.

A particle or matter is a quanta of a quantum field...a concentration of energy,momentum,etc. Regarding the big bang, it is possible quantum fluctuations in the inflationary vacuum become quanta [particles] at super horizon scales. Particle production via changing gravitational fields and expansion is believed a real phenomenon. It seems that expansion of geometry itself, especially inflation, can produce matter.

We're familiar with other theoretical cases where geometric circumstances create real (not virtual) particles , like Hawking radiation at a BH horizon and Unruh radiation caused by an accelerating observer. With the Unruh effect, it is theorized that two adjacent observers, one inertial and one accelerating will measure different temperatures and make different counts of particles. In other discussions in these forums, there are theories that at the Hubble radius the accelerating Hubble Horizon is sufficient for the production of particles.

A distinction between particles and mass would be that a particle might be massless, like the photon, while others would have mass, like an electron or W boson. The difference is that a certain scalar field is sufficient to break symmetry in some cases via a 'false vacuum' transition: It is theorized that is the Higgs field which is part of the Standard Model of PArticle Physics and is powered by a vacuum energy.


According to Wikipedia, Nobody understands the precise nature of the Higgs mechanism either but there are mathematical models. MarkM gives a description in Post #12, here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=621236

 

[PhanthomJay]

Hawking continues to be ignored for some reason . Gravity is energy and energy is mass.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.

-Hawking, "The Grand Design".

Gravity...Hawking's god...creator of all both seen and unseen.

Now if we could just figure how gravitational energy originated...

 

[Kristiandhd]

We have extremely good evidence that matter existed as subatomic particles and then combined to form neutral atoms. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the biggest piece of evidence for this. Extrapolating back using our current known laws it can be shown that the universe existed as a very hot very dense state where particle-antiparticle pairs were created from EM radiation only to annihilate back to radiation soon after creation. The only reason this stopped was because expansion caused the universe to cool below the temperature necessary to create particle-antiparticle pairs.
Please, learn a bit about the standard model of Cosmology before claiming that we don't know.

but that's during the big bang. not before that, the radiation is as far as i know only reflectan of the time during and after the big bang
though matter could have been as sub atomic particle or something else before, spread all across the universe not condense and hot, over time it could have condense as if it were a newly forming star.
it is agreed that all matter was condense. but was there an infinite space-time out side of that? and wouldn't it be unlikely that we were the only big bang in the universe, if it is infinite.?
though for us our observable universe is more than immensely big, for and infinite space-time this would all just be another speck of dust.
now if space-time isn't eternal then matter appeared from nowhere, since matter can not be where space-time isn't, it could have been a billionth of a nano second after space, it still appeared from nowhere.

just for fun
it's not about what's probable, but about what is possible.

 

[Mark M]

but that's during the big bang. not before that, the radiation is as far as i know only reflectan of the time during and after the big bang

Radiation dominated the very early moments after the big bang. However, particle pair production gave rise to the particles of the Standard Model, which then proceeded to begin big bang nucleosynthesis very shortly thereafter.

though matter could have been as sub atomic particle or something else before, spread all across the universe not condense and hot, over time it could have condense as if it were a newly forming star.

No. The big bang wasn't a point in space. It was NOT an explosion. The ENTIRE universe was filled with radiation and a hot dense plasma. Space itself underwent metric expansion, so that the radiation redshifted and cooled, and the matter became gas. Dense regions of the gas pulled in the less dense regions, becoming galaxies. This is why we observer our universe today to be homogeneous.

it is agreed that all matter was condense.

This also incorrect. The universe was extremely dense, but as stated above, this dense plasma was everywhere.

but was there an infinite space-time out side of that?

Firstly, the big bang happened everywhere. Secondly, there is no such thing as 'outside' of the universe. The universe may be infinite, or it is simply or non-simply connected if finite.

and wouldn't it be unlikely that we were the only big bang in the universe, if it is infinite.?

One again, the big bang is a moment in time, not a point in space. If the universe is infinite, then it still occurred everywhere.

It seems you have quite a few misconceptions about cosmology. I would strongly recommend reading this article:

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

Also, you should take a look at this page afterwords:

www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy

 

[twofish-quant]

ohh sorry i meant a proton and an electron. and we can't know that for sure. because we don't know whether matter came into existence even at its most basic form like you said, as sub atomic particle or anything more basic then that, which we haven't seen. or if has always been there.

Actually we can. It's not a big deal for physicists to create protons and electrons. Happens all of the time at CERN. You can call someone on the phone and say "Jim, I want you to make me a proton" and someone flips a switch and it happens.

its unknown, don't be so sure of your statements because no one knows in this field with 100% certainty of anything

We can get into a useless discussion about whether it's possible to be absolutely certain of anything, but it's possible to be as certain about the events of the early universe as it is to be certain about the events of say the American Revolutionary War or World War II. Figuring out the early universe is no different than figuring out the live history of George Washington, and we probably have *more* evidence for certain parts of the early universe than we do about some parts of Washington's life.

I know that Time Square exists because I've been there. I know that the big bang happened because I've seen pictures of it. Speed of light delays things, so you can take a microwave telescope and see the big bang. Since you can actually see the big bang *right now* it's actually easier in some ways to figure out how it works than to figure out the life of George Washington.

thats why its discuss so much and it will most likely always be discussed in the hope of finding out everything about everything, which is most likely impossible but it doesn't mean we won't try.

One of my goals is to demystify cosmology. It's not so weird thing. You can see the big bang as easily as you can see the plant Pluto.

 

[Kristiandhd]

i didn't mean outside of the universe, and how can matter occupy the entire universe if it is infinite, and if space-time appears from nowhere, as it is expanding, why can't matter come from nowhere.
and as i stated i said maybe at hydrogen or a more basic type of matter.
and i believe in the big expansion, its proven and observable, but the question was about before it, and where the matter came from. i think it appeared from nothing, specially if the space-time is not eternal or has always been around, since if it started at some point, space had to appear before matter could occupy it.

 

[QuantumHop]

Is there any theory offering an explination as to the origin of all matter? I'm not talking about the big bang, but where the matter which went bang originiated from.

And I know the one theory about 10 dimensions and all the matter going into 4 and the others collapsing, but I'm more looking for how it was created.

As I understand it matter is kind of borrowed at the expense of gravity, so if gravity was negative energy and matter was positive and you add them both together you end up with nothing.

 

[Drakkith]

i didn't mean outside of the universe, and how can matter occupy the entire universe if it is infinite, and if space-time appears from nowhere, as it is expanding, why can't matter come from nowhere.
and as i stated i said maybe at hydrogen or a more basic type of matter.
and i believe in the big expansion, its proven and observable, but the question was about before it, and where the matter came from. i think it appeared from nothing, specially if the space-time is not eternal or has always been around, since if it started at some point, space had to appear before matter could occupy it.

Matter doesn't occupy every fraction of space within the universe, it is merely spread out approximately homogenous everywhere. (Meaning that it clumps together into galaxies and stars and such, but on the largest scales it is homogenous.) If the universe is infinite in extent, and the average density of matter is the same everywhere, then there is an infinite amount of matter spread approximately homogenously throughout the entire universe.

Matter was not created from nothing. All the matter in the universe today was created early in the universe by interacting high energy photons. Where the ultimate origin of all of this was is unknown and probably isn't capable of being known. Any talk of where spacetime came from is pure speculation at this point.

 

[phinds]

So matter and anti-matter existed together?

yes, but not for long