The First Particles After the Big Bang: What Do We Know?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the formation of real particles after the Big Bang, emphasizing the need for a significant violation of CP symmetry to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry. Current theories suggest that a slight excess of neutrons may have existed shortly after the Big Bang, but the details of particle formation remain incomplete. The timeline of particle creation includes the formation of quarks and neutrinos within the first 10^-43 to 10^-32 seconds, followed by nucleons and basic ions in subsequent seconds. The distinction between virtual and real particles is noted to be unclear, as both types are interconnected in the context of particle physics. Overall, understanding the first particles remains a complex puzzle in cosmology.
cbd1
Messages
123
Reaction score
1
I have read "The First Three Minutes" and all of the information about the Big Bang on Wikipedia, but I cannot find through either of these sources the newest theory of the first particles to arise after the Big Bang. Is it possible that one particle may have been first? Also, I am interested in real particles, as opposed to virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, which would all destroy and leave nothing behind. There must have been particles made that were not in such virtual particle pairs in order for there to be any particles remaining today.. What do we know about this?
 
Space news on Phys.org
There must have been particles made that were not in such virtual particle pairs in order for there to be any particles remaining today.. What do we know about this?
This is one of the puzzles of the big bang, since current theory does not have any excess of particles at the big bang. The general theory about why we have particles is that there is a slight difference in decay properties between particles and antiparticles. However, the details are incomplete.
 
Although how they came into being is not known, there is a reasonable chance that a slight excess of neutrons (one neutron per 1.7 x 109 photons) existed just after 10-6 sec. At earlier times, the photon energy was too high for neutrons to be stable for any significant fraction of the age at the time.
 
cbd1 said:
I have read "The First Three Minutes" and all of the information about the Big Bang on Wikipedia, but I cannot find through either of these sources the newest theory of the first particles to arise after the Big Bang. Is it possible that one particle may have been first? Also, I am interested in real particles, as opposed to virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, which would all destroy and leave nothing behind. There must have been particles made that were not in such virtual particle pairs in order for there to be any particles remaining today.. What do we know about this?
Basically you need a significant violation of what is known as the CP symmetry: charge plus parity. We already know of some very small violations of CP symmetry through the weak nuclear force, but those violations aren't large enough to explain the asymmetry of matter/anti-matter in the early universe. For more on this, you may want to take a look at the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

Note that this really isn't an issue of distinction between virtual and real particles, because there is no clear distinction between them.
 
Ok here is the load down on the big bang:

1. Between 10^{-43} s and 10^{-32} s quarks, neutrinos are created.
2. Between 10^{-6} s and 255 s nucleons are formed: neutrons and protons.
3. Between 10^{3} s and 10^{13} s basic ions are formed : Hydrogen and Helium.
4. Between 10^{13} s and 10^{15} s neutral atoms form.
5. Between 10^{15} s and the present day: stars and galaxies are formed and evolving.

Just to put a scale on this a billion years is 10^{16} s so it has taken just under 100 million years for atoms to form.
References: pp1542-1543 University Physics, Young & Freedman.
 
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...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Back
Top