I Some questions about baryogenesis

Barry-O-Genesis
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I have some basic questions about how protons and anti-protons are formed.
I'm trying to follow Scott Dodelson's Modern Cosmology. Specifically Chapter 3. Coverage of the subject of baryogenesis appears to be missing from Dodleson's book, so I'm trying to reconstruct things on my own.

qkhA0.png


This represents the formula:$$n_p[T]=g_p\space (\frac{k_b\space m_p\space T}{2\pi \hbar})^{\frac{3}{2}}\space e^{-\frac{c^2m_p}{k_B\space T}}$$which should be the same as formula (3.6) in SI units. So, my questions are:

1. I'm a little confused about what this number is, exactly. Does this represent the number of protons in a unit volume as long as the protons are in equilibrium with their surroundings? If we're working in SI units, is this the number of protons that I'd find in a cubic meter as a function of temperature (time)?

2. Isn't there supposed to be some event that causes proton creation to eventually stop and for the change in proton density to be governed only by the expansion of space from that point out ("freeze-out")? Don't we need the reaction rate (##\gamma+\gamma=p+\bar p##) and the expansion rate (##H##) to know when "freeze-out" occurs? Where can I find a lucid discussion of this?

3. As I interpret this chart, the number of baryons today should be effectively zero. If the plasma stayed in equilibrium down to the 7 MeV range, then certainly the protons would have been converted into other particles (photons). Yes, I understand the same can be said of antimatter, but it seems like you don't even need anti-protons to make the argument that - according to this formula - there should be no protons (baryons) a ##0 MeV##. Am I reading this chart incorrectly?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Baryogenesis generally refers not to the "freeze-out" of baryons, but instead to the CP-breaking physics which created the imbalance between normal matter and anti-matter. This is currently an unsolved problem in theoretical physics. This field of study is usually more aligned with high-energy physics than cosmology.

The freeze-out of baryons is part of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which Dodelson starts talking about in 3.2. For the purposes of cosmology, it's generally just assumed that there are some number of protons at low temperatures, and at high temperatures there are those protons plus thermal proton/anti-proton pairs (edit: not protons, baryons. Mix of neutrons and protons at low energies). It is those thermal proton/anti-proton pairs that that equation describes, I believe.

As for the dependence upon the expansion, since the thermal proton/anti-proton particles are thermal, their number density is fully-defined by the temperature.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top