Origin of Matter: Theory Explaining Creation

[wasteofo2]

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.

 

[mathman]

There is lots of speculation, like it was there all the time, oscillating universes, mutiple universes, etc. But be careful - it is all guessing now.

 

[meteor]

Shortly after Big Bang existed a quark-gluon plasma, that is, quarks and gluons wandering freely. Then occurred what is called the QCD phase transition, is a first-order phase transition where quarks and gluons joined to form hadrons

 

[hellfire]

The current explanation for the origin of matter is given by inflation. There was (an instant after big-bang) a scalar field (inflaton) which accumulated energy due to its constant energy density (and due to an exponential expansion of space). This energy was taken from the gravitational potential and was transferred to the matter fields during a process called reheating. My understanding of the whole thing is only qualitative, may be someone could confirm or elaborate.

 

[wasteofo2]

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

 

[Eh]

Why would it need to come from anywhere? Maybe it was always there.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by Eh
Why would it need to come from anywhere? Maybe it was always there.

That's just a lazy answer, with that logic no one would have ever thought of the big bang theory or evolution.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
That's just a lazy answer, with that logic no one would have ever thought of the big bang theory or evolution.

This ignores the fact that something in nature may be fundemental, and as such could not have been created by something else prior. Energy may be a fundamental property of the universe, and if so the question is moot. If you must insist that the physical universe must have been created, then you're looking at an infinite regress of causes or some grand metaphysical speculations, at which point you're no longer asking scientific questions.

The big bang on the other hand, has nothing to do with such speculation. The theory was derived from GR and observational evidence. IOW, that the universe emerged from a hot dense state in the past has nothing to do with whether or not energy has always been around.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
To restate my question more clearly:
Where did the material/energy which went "bang" in the big bang come from?

That's one of the biggest unknowns in science. Try looking into things like Inflation theory, M-theory, etc. for some of the latest thoughts on that.

 

[UltraPi1]

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

Although you will likely not be happy with any answer given - I shall put one forth anyway.

First off - I believe there was no big to buttress the bang. The material of the universe came from nothing, or better yet - It is nothing. Go figer.

Funny part about this ... is that I'm serious.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
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.

Lets say you are seeking the "for how it was created"..then would you be interested in 'back-engineering' it for destruction purpose's? let's say if you got out of bed the wrong side one morning, or had a minor disagreement with some unsuspecting Human, would not you be able to 'dictate' your every COMMAND?

Behind every Question is an Answer, behind every Person asking questions is a reason..

 

[meteor]

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

Perhaps you would like to read about Loop quantum Cosmology. In this theory, there was a contraction phase of the universe prior to the Big bang, and is possible that matter existed in this prior phase

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by meteor
Perhaps you would like to read about Loop quantum Cosmology. In this theory, there was a contraction phase of the universe prior to the Big bang, and is possible that matter existed in this prior phase

Somehow, within a fraction of a nanosecond after the big bang, matter gained the upper hand. Physicists believe subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter led to a slight excess of matter in the very early universe. While most of the matter and antimatter created in the big bang quickly disappeared in a blaze of mutual annihilation, about one out of every billion particles of matter survived. So to answer your question or at least my opinion matter was already existant.

 

[meteor]

The Pre-Big Bang Scenario in string cosmology also postulates the existence of the universe prior to the Big Bang, so in this case matter could also exist before Big Bang

 

[ALS]

So matter and anti-matter existed together?

 

[meteor]

They exist together even now. It's possible to observe things like charmonium (a charm quark-anticharm quark pair) or bottonium (a bottom quark-antibottom quark pair)

 

[ALS]

If the space between them decides whether they cancel each other out, then how does that play when essentially there is none, per The Big Bang?

 

[meteor]

Somehow, within a fraction of a nanosecond after the big bang, matter gained the upper hand. Physicists believe subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter led to a slight excess of matter in the very early universe

There are various theories that explain the prevalence of matter over antimatter, for example, consider SU(5) GUT. SU(5) GUT is a Grand unified theory, and in this theory, matter and antimatter appear as a consequence of the decay of two hypothetical particles, the X-boson and the anti-X boson. It is postulated that in between 10^-35 s. and 10^-12s. after Big Bang this two particles underwent radioactive decay in an antisymmetric way. This created more quantity of matter than antimatter as decay products

 

[StarThrower]

I will give you an answer that you aren't likely to get from any other individual here.

Let the universe be nothing but particles in the vaccum.

Now by definition, a point particle cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. Let the number of point particles at the beginning of time be denoted by N. The number of point particles at every moment in time from the beginning up to the present, was N. Thus, the derivative of N with respect to t is zero, that is

dN/dt = 0

Thus, point particles can only move relative to one another.

So then if the point particle model of the universe is the actual model, then the answer to your question is that the basic units of all larger material bodies did not ever come into existence, rather they were always there, from the first moment in time, right up to now.

Point particles have no parts, they cannot be created, nor can they be destroyed. The question then is, are point particles real entities, do they exist?

They would have no volume, and so it is difficult to imagine how two point particles could ever collide. But at the very least, the point particle model of the universe, models everything as some kind of huge point particle gas, and in certain regions of space, the gas is very dense, and forms large bodies of matter, including suns. It's just a model.

 

[Eh]

Particles are created and destroyed all the time. For example, accelerate a charged particle and you get the creation of photons.

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by Eh
Particles are created and destroyed all the time. For example, accelerate a charged particle and you get the creation of photons.

Let them be point particles. Point particles cannot be created nor destroyed. If a charged particle breaks into photons, and photons have no parts, then photons are point particles, vis a vis the fundamental units of matter. That which has no parts cannot be destroyed, that which has no parts cannot be created. If photons can break into parts, then photons are not point particles.

Start with a body of mass M, break it into parts. Take a part, and break it into parts. Take one of those parts and break it into parts, and so on. Now either there must be an end to this process or not. If at some point you must choose a part which cannot be destroyed you are at what Democritus called the atom. Suppose that there is no end to this process. It then follows that anybody of mass M stores an infinite energy, contrary to the theory of relativity (as well as reality).

It is not the case that

Mc^2 = \infty

Democritus had the basic idea, and it was called Atemnos in Greek, meaning "cannot be cut".

A \tau \epsilon \mu \nu o \sigma

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by StarThrower
Let them be point particles. Point particles cannot be created nor destroyed. If a charged particle breaks into photons, and photons have no parts, then photons are point particles, vis a vis the fundamental units of matter. That which has no parts cannot be destroyed, that which has no parts cannot be created. If photons can break into parts, then photons are not point particles.

If a photon collides with an electron, the photon is absorbed and the electron gets a jump in it's energy level. The photon is gone. Democritus was wrong that time.

 

[StarThrower]

Who is to say that the photon was destroyed?

 

[Eh]

Because it's gone from the picture. Only energy is conserved in such situations.

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it's gone from the picture. Only energy is conserved in such situations.

I don't buy that. The quantum theory of light only speaks about the energy of photons emitted or absorbed by atoms, but it doesn't attempt to at all explain what happens to the photon when it is absorbed by an electron.

It seems to me you are thinking that the photon just suddenly vanishes from existence. Why can't it 'embed' itself inside the electron?

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that quantum theory is error free in the first place.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by StarThrower
It seems to me you are thinking that the photon just suddenly vanishes from existence. Why can't it 'embed' itself inside the electron?

How can a point embed itself in another point? The idea sounds nonsensical. At any rate, current theory predicts energy is conserved, but there is nothing to suggest matter is.

 

[Hurkyl]

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that quantum theory is error free in the first place.

But no alternative is known that is consistent with as many facts as QT.

 

[maxfl38]

Maybe the sun produces matter through it's energy, planet's rich with minerals don't make sense to come from supernova's, if uranium decay's on a "time" basis, should'nt it be all in the same state of decay?

 

[Drakkith]

Maybe the sun produces matter through it's energy, planet's rich with minerals don't make sense to come from supernova's, if uranium decay's on a "time" basis, should'nt it be all in the same state of decay?

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.

 

[abuguchie]

I always thought that when photons gained enough energy, they would spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle, and this is where the matter came from. However, I am not sure, I am quite inexperienced so correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[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.