What do we know about Baryogenesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pdyxs
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Baryogenesis is a process that occurred shortly after the Big Bang, leading to an imbalance between matter and antimatter, allowing quarks to dominate. Current understanding highlights CP asymmetry due to the Weak Force as a contributing factor, but it may not fully explain the observed imbalance. The knowledge of baryogenesis is relatively advanced compared to other cosmological areas, with significant contributions from particle physicists and strong experimental support. While predictions about primordial element abundances are largely accurate, some discrepancies remain regarding heavier elements. Overall, baryogenesis presents a compelling mystery that could enhance the narrative of a game centered on high-energy particle physics.
pdyxs
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm part of a games studio who is currently building a game about high energy particle physics (essentially you control a quark and have to try not to get annihilated by anti-quarks), and we're thinking of setting it just after the Big Bang.

One idea we've been toying with is that you're essentially playing out the conflict between particles and antiparticles, and that you possibly play in a part in baryogenesis (the process that allowed the quarks to 'win').

As far as I can tell, baryogenesis is still pretty vague. We know that there's CP asymmetry between particles and antiparticles due to the Weak Force, and that this could lead to the imbalance, but from what I've read, the CP violation isn't really enough to cause the imbalance observed.

If this is the case, it's a really nice juicy mystery that we could approach in the game. If not, I'm hoping we can utilise whatever else is out there.

So my question is: what else, if anything, has been found out about baryogenesis?
 
Space news on Phys.org
pdyxs said:
I'm part of a games studio who is currently building a game about high energy particle physics (essentially you control a quark and have to try not to get annihilated by anti-quarks)
I see negative effects on the physics knowledge of players.

and that you possibly play in a part in baryogenesis (the process that allowed the quarks to 'win').
That would require the own annihilation, as every other process involving particle changes. A very common process in the early universe anyway.

So my question is: what else, if anything, has been found out about baryogenesis?
It happened, and it requires high energy. And, well... some other stuff.
As usual, Wikipedia gives an introduction.
 
Actually, our knowledge of baryogenesis is rather advanced compared to other areas of cosmology. Much of this knowledge was contributed by particle physicists and has good experimental support. We have predicted primordial abundances of the elements with great accuracy. There remain a few quibbles over the relative abundance of some of the heavier elements [e.g., deuterium, lithium], but, the predictions are generally very good. We also have extensive knowledge of the energies required to produce most of the fundamental particles.
 
@Chronos: Baryogenesis happened before the formation of nuclei via fusion. The second process is well understood, the first one is not (at least not as good as other processes).
 
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##.
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