# Origin of matter

1. Nov 30, 2003

### 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.

2. Nov 30, 2003

### 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.

3. Dec 1, 2003

### 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

4. Dec 1, 2003

### 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.

5. Dec 1, 2003

### wasteofo2

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

Last edited: Dec 1, 2003
6. Dec 1, 2003

### Eh

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

7. Dec 1, 2003

### wasteofo2

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

8. Dec 1, 2003

### Ambitwistor

It's not a lazy answer; in fact, there are theories in which the universe is eternal. One can debate why the laws of physics have matter and radiation fields to begin with, but that's not necessarily a question that science can answer.

9. Dec 2, 2003

### Eh

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 fundemental 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.

10. Dec 2, 2003

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
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.

11. Dec 2, 2003

### UltraPi1

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.

12. Dec 3, 2003

### ranyart

Lets say you are seeking the "for how it was created"..then would you be interested in 'back-engineering' it for destruction purpose's? lets 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..

13. Dec 5, 2003

### 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

14. Dec 6, 2003

### Jeebus

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.

15. Dec 6, 2003

### meteor

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

16. Dec 13, 2003

### ALS

So matter and anti-matter existed together?

17. Dec 13, 2003

### 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)

18. Dec 13, 2003

### 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?

19. Dec 22, 2003

### meteor

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

Last edited: Dec 22, 2003
20. Dec 24, 2003

### 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.

21. Dec 24, 2003

### Eh

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

22. Dec 24, 2003

### 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.

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 any body 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".

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

Last edited: Dec 24, 2003
23. Dec 24, 2003

### Eh

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.

24. Dec 24, 2003

### StarThrower

Who is to say that the photon was destroyed?

25. Dec 24, 2003

### Eh

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