why is there more matter than anti-matter? We may be a step closer to finding out

[NigelCampbell]

Interesting news from the T2K neutrino expriment in Japan:

A step closer to solving one of the biggest mysteries in fundamental physics? | STFC

[JulianO]

It's another useful confirmation.

Most of this stuff was already fairly well understood when it was used to solve the Solar Neutrino problem. It's always good to get confirmation of the last bits of the puzzle though.

if you don't poke into all the corners of physics, you never know what you might miss.

[ronin]

why is there more matter than anti-matter?

No idea why, but if there was the same amount then surely they would cancel and so there would be no matter.

So in order for this universe, or any other, to exist there has to be an imbalance.

[Ursa Major]

Very interesting. Especially because I am studying this in physics at the moment.

[JulianO]

One of the current theories is that baryon number is not necessarily conserved at high energies, which allows a small imbalance in mater/anti-matter. If there is a tiny inbalance, such that there is a 1 in a billion imbalance, this works out quite nicely. So for every billion anti-protons made in the big bang, 1 billion and 1 protons are made, then basically they all cancel each other out leaving the 1 remainder.

[NeutrinoWave]

BBC News - LHC reveals hints of 'new physics' in particle decays

Not quite 5 Sigma, but promising ...

[DarkStar7]

The magnetic field is the same as the electric field accept it is seen in a non inertial frame of reference. Lets assign the electric field as the 5th dimension and the magnetic field the 6th dimension.

So it occurs to me that although particle physics is concerned with particles including electron, perhaps there is an exact hidden mirror universe of ours that lies within the magnetic field (6th dimension)that intersects the electric field(5th) that we just don't see. An electron in the 6th looks like a magnetic field in the 5th,and an electron in the 5th looks like a magnetic field in the 6th. Light propagates by weaving between the two.

The hidden mirror universe maybe associated with this missing anti matter but it co exists because it is out of phase by 90 degrees.

Perhaps where both dimensions intersect within the atom would be a good mechanism for producing Pauli's exclusion principle. Ie an electron can only exist when it is influenced by a magnetic field.

In this idea current flow is occurs when a stationary electron continually and alternately changes phase into a magnetic field and then back again into a stationary electron slightly different location. Ie there is always a associated magnetic field with a moving electon.

Mmm just thinking out loud.

[JulianO]

The magnetic field is the same as the electric field accept it is seen in a non inertial frame of reference. Lets assign the electric field as the 5th dimension and the magnetic field the 6th dimension.

The magnetic field oscillates in phase, but at 90deg to the electric field vector.

So we only need 3 dimensions to describe it. 1 for the electrical wave component, 1 for the magnetic component and 1 for the direction its heading in. Why would we need to assign a brand new dimension when the three spatial ones we have work perfectly well.

As to switching to a non-intertial (accelerating) frame of reference, I can't see what that brings to the party. This would mean the electric field is stationary, but the magnetic one is accelerating some how? As the two are tightly coupled together (see above) I can't see how that would work,

Use Occams razor, don't go making up new dimensions just because you can!

[DarkStar7]

Kazula Klein theory uses five dimensions. Adding dimensions actually makes it easier to find a theory of everything. String theory uses 11.

Anyhow, the point is if you are in the same reference frame as the magnetic field ie moving with the magnetic field it would appear stationary and look like an electric field. The moving electric field looks like a magnetic field..

So I just thought we could hide a mirror universe at right angles to it

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem

[Telrad]

Great link Nigel, thanks. Very interesting article

[DarkStar7]

I think it is more likely and natural to imagine light to propagate as a double helix.reminiscent of this nebula at the centre of our galaxy.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Astronomers-Report-Unprecedented-6903.aspx?RelNum=6903

Seems more natural than the typical wave you describe from usual text books. Plasma regular appears in the form of a double helix and may well be a missing link towards the formation of the first DNA molecules in space.

[DarkStar7]

One of the current theories is that baryon number is not necessarily conserved at high energies, which allows a small imbalance in mater/anti-matter. If there is a tiny inbalance, such that there is a 1 in a billion imbalance, this works out quite nicely. So for every billion anti-protons made in the big bang, 1 billion and 1 protons are made, then basically they all cancel each other out leaving the 1 remainder.

What could cause the baryon number not to conserve at high energies?Perhaps one quark collapses into a neutrino leaving a lepton.. Such as the electron?

I was wondering if the neutrino is actually similar phenomena to a blackhole but near massless, and it's these little chaps that neutralise the big bang into the neutral expanding spacetime that we all are inhabiting...mmm

[JulianO]

I think it is more likely and natural to imagine light to propagate as a double helix.reminiscent of this nebula at the centre of our galaxy.

It might be more natural, but its wrong according to both experiment and theory. As Feynman said,

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

Seems more natural than the typical wave you describe from usual text books. Plasma regular appears in the form of a double helix and may well be a missing link towards the formation of the first DNA molecules in space.

DNA has never been discovered in space, its never even been discovered in meteorites. There isn't much mystery about how DNA is fabricated, scientists do it every day, in fact you can even buy off the shelf machines to make DNA sequences to order. Either as primers used in DNA amplification, or even whole genomes as Venter did a year or two ago (complete with an HTTP link encoded in it!)

DNA's helix comes from the particular bonding required to assemble it - its a sort of conflict between the sugar/phosphate backbone, and the competing forces that cause the flat organic bases to stack. The former is longer than the latter so causes it to twist. You can get it in several forms, the A, the more normally described B form which is what everyone sees, and the Z form. None of them are actually a pure symmetric double helix.

[DarkStar7]

But Juliano, this double helix nebula is produced by magnetic fields from the black hole. There is plenty of evidence that the magnetic flux twists as a vortex.Since it is one component of light then I think the model you depict is a bit out of date.

This link is controversial but interesting;

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf

What you explained about DNA is fine but it gives no reason to why nature should naturally produce them. I don't believe in a god that sticks things together. There is a pattern to nature that leads from simpler processes to more complex forms. All those discovered amino acids and complex hydrocarbons found in nebula (Ionised plasma) must be the precursor to living things. There is good observational evidence for the theory of Panspermia.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2087758,00.html

It's very easy to say someone is wrong without giving clear evidence to clearly show why this is the case. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Space Bat]

This link is interesting to assist DS7

DNA components found in meteorites – Light Years - CNN.com Blogs

OK not a full picture of what is discounted...but evidence of possibility

Also the reasons for matter / anti-matter imbalance is not so hard to understand if you understand how time works...?

[JulianO]

Yes - lots of organic molecules have been found in meteorites. Certainly many of the prerequisites for DNA, RNA and proteins. There is even some evidence for chiral imbalances - although I think the jury is still firmly out on this issue.

It's not really a good argument for panspermia, except in a most general form perhaps whereby a planet that is seeded with organic building blocks might help life get started, as oppose to full panspermia whereby life arrives complete and ready in meteorites.

Finding the components of proteins and DNA is not surprising, or particular evidence. Harold Miller synthesised some amino acids and DNA components in his classic experiment.

It's a huge step from there to life though. Its like saying the elements of a car were found in a building - when all that was found was 10 screws, 3 washers and a couple of nuts. Sure they are building blocks of a car, but no one is going to be driving it around any time soon.

So scientists have been finding nuts and blots in meteorites for years, but they haven't found anything close to a chassis an engine or even a piston yet.

An amino acid - a protein building blocks are only 10+ atoms put together - molecular weight of 120+ or so, a typical small protein might be a molecular weight of 5000 and be 1000s of atoms.

Similarly the building blocks of DNA are organic bases which have been detected in meteorites, ribose and deoxyribose sugars which I haven't heard of being detected, and phosphate which is common enough. Ribose is 20 atoms and guanine (one of the bases) 16 atoms. So a basic nucleotide is around 40 atoms. You need two of these for a pair, and a sequence of around 1000 for the simplest viruses and 16,000 for mitochondria - neither of which can reproduce on their own. So its a big jump from a structure of 20 atoms to one of 40,000.

[Space Bat]

Indeed Julian - hence I did mention that was not conclusive DNA (Life) found in Meteorite.

But more evidence of the first elements albeit small of the building blocks to which complex structures such as DNA could evolve - if such circumstances assisted.

No more hard to believe if one considers we are quite prepared to believe the universe was created out of nothing in one almighty explosion....?

There is more to these findings than meets the eye

[NeutrinoWave]

Yes - lots of organic molecules have been found in meteorites. Certainly many of the prerequisites for DNA, RNA and proteins. There is even some evidence for chiral imbalances - although I think the jury is still firmly out on this issue.

It's not really a good argument for panspermia, except in a most general form perhaps whereby a planet that is seeded with organic building blocks might help life get started, as oppose to full panspermia whereby life arrives complete and ready in meteorites.

Finding the components of proteins and DNA is not surprising, or particular evidence. Harold Miller synthesised some amino acids and DNA components in his classic experiment.

It's a huge step from there to life though. Its like saying the elements of a car were found in a building - when all that was found was 10 screws, 3 washers and a couple of nuts. Sure they are building blocks of a car, but no one is going to be driving it around any time soon.

So scientists have been finding nuts and blots in meteorites for years, but they haven't found anything close to a chassis an engine or even a piston yet.

An amino acid - a protein building blocks are only 10+ atoms put together - molecular weight of 120+ or so, a typical small protein might be a molecular weight of 5000 and be 1000s of atoms.

Similarly the building blocks of DNA are organic bases which have been detected in meteorites, ribose and deoxyribose sugars which I haven't heard of being detected, and phosphate which is common enough. Ribose is 20 atoms and guanine (one of the bases) 16 atoms. So a basic nucleotide is around 40 atoms. You need two of these for a pair, and a sequence of around 1000 for the simplest viruses and 16,000 for mitochondria - neither of which can reproduce on their own. So its a big jump from a structure of 20 atoms to one of 40,000.

Interesting that an Astrophysics question has got responded via AstroChemistry and AstroBiology, or even AstroBioChemistry if that.

[Reggie]

Indeed Julian - hence I did mention that was not conclusive DNA (Life) found in Meteorite.

But more evidence of the first elements albeit small of the building blocks to which complex structures such as DNA could evolve - if such circumstances assisted.

No more hard to believe if one considers we are quite prepared to believe the universe was created out of nothing in one almighty explosion....?

There is more to these findings than meets the eye

This has been an interesting thread to read, however, I'm not prepared to believe the universe was created out of nothing in an almighty explosion. I believe it was an event but certainly not a bang I didn't think it was possible to create energy, just convert it. I have zero astrophysics education, so forgive me if I'm being dumb but the big bang sounds like a misnomer to me, more like the big event.

I thought current quantum theories also didn't describe the event as everything coming from nothing, just at that point it started but they don't really know where from or how and thats why there are a few different theories exploring the possibilities?