Evidence For Antimatter Anomaly Mounts

The universe ended? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:02 · Score: 0, Funny

Why didn't anyone tell me? Why am I still here?

Re:The universe ended? by gstrickler · 2012-03-01 08:00 · Score: 1

They did, but due to relativity, the signal hasn't reached you yet.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Playing with marbles by DigiShaman · 2012-02-29 08:04 · Score: 2

Our universe is just another marble in someone's bag. *sigh*

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Playing with marbles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:06 · Score: 0, Redundant

As yes, the "Men In Black" theory of the Universe.
Re:Playing with marbles by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-02-29 08:07 · Score: 0

+1 MiB reference.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:Playing with marbles by Zandamesh · 2012-02-29 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Our universe is just another marble in someone's bag. *sigh*
Galaxy. It's another galaxy in someone's bag.

--
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
Re:Playing with marbles by na1led · 2012-02-29 08:18 · Score: 1

Or pixels on a big screen.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:Playing with marbles by RobCull · 2012-02-29 09:11 · Score: 1

You Twip!
(I'll be surprised if anyone gets this joke)
Re:Playing with marbles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:11 · Score: 0

I was initially confused why you were referring to binary Megabytes, before I realized it could have meant 'Marble in Bag'. It took me yet another moment to come up with Men in Black.

That's probably one of the saddest things that's happened to me this week.
Re:Playing with marbles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:26 · Score: 0

You Twip!
(I'll be surprised if anyone gets this joke)
I remember my days of working in Visual Basic as a young teen and wondering why it took so much work just to make my application's window resize (in twips, pixels, or anything else!). Then I discovered widget sets like Gtk, Fox, and wxWidgets and got on with writing the real parts of the program. ;)
Re:Playing with marbles by hairyfeet · 2012-02-29 13:52 · Score: 1

Bah, the antimatter got split up among the bazillion alternate universes along with a smartass kid, an old professor, and an R&B man...oh and some chick, because if its one thing the multiverse don't like its a sausage fest.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Playing with marbles by gstoddart · 2012-02-29 17:41 · Score: 1

Bravo, sir!

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Playing with marbles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 20:47 · Score: 0

it has been a good week.

So the Universe ended... by neokushan · 2012-02-29 08:05 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess that means I must be in heaven or hell.
Come to think of it, reading the comments on Slashdot does feel a little bit like Purgatory....

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill

Re:So the Universe ended... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:56 · Score: 0

Come to think of it, reading the comments on Slashdot does feel a little bit like Purgatory....
That is, this place is full of no longer working image thumbs, with a set of possibly working links.

Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by PPH · 2012-02-29 08:08 · Score: 4, Funny

So then, its like populating the roads with an equal number of Priuses and Lincoln Navigators?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-29 08:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes. The Navigators, being made by Lincoln would decay at a faster rate than the Priuses made by Toyota.
Therefore eventually there would be more Priuses on the road than Navigators.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-02-29 08:44 · Score: 1

Best. Car Analogy. evar.
Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by geekoid · 2012-02-29 09:21 · Score: 1

Provable wrong.
There are for more 15 year old Lincoln Navigators on the road the Toyota Priuses~

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:23 · Score: 0

That assumes that the two types never collide. In a collision, the prius would fair to well against the navigator. The prius would not drive away. The navigator most likely would. IF they are smashing into each other at millions of miles per hour, then no. Both are screwed.
Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:32 · Score: 0

But were they populated evenly to start?

WTF are they studying?? by wbr1 · 2012-02-29 08:11 · Score: 1, Offtopic

From TFA:

To witness CP violation.... The accepted theory...allows for a low level of CP violation... So researchers have been trying to find cases in which CP violation is higher.

Oh, never mind it stands for charge-parity. One would have thought they would find a better acronym.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:WTF are they studying?? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-02-29 08:36 · Score: 1

I think CP violation was used by particle physicists long before the term was hijacked and given a different meaning by law enforcement hysteria.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:WTF are they studying?? by jfengel · 2012-02-29 08:39 · Score: 1

There's another meaning? Google just turns up the physics one, at least for me.
Re:WTF are they studying?? by Zumbs · 2012-02-29 09:00 · Score: 1

I get Canadian Pacific Railway Limited and Club Penguin from Google, and I suspect that GP did not refer to either.

--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Re:WTF are they studying?? by RobCull · 2012-02-29 09:24 · Score: 1

Cheese Pizza
Re:WTF are they studying?? by ArsenneLupin · 2012-02-29 10:13 · Score: 1

Well for me, it turns up Canadian pacific as the first hit. Not very interesting...
But the second link is www.clubpenguin.com:

Welcome to Club Penguin, a virtual world for kids guided by an unwavering commitment to safety and creativity.
hummmm... seems there is more about Linux than meets the eye...
Re:WTF are they studying?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:15 · Score: 0

>I get Canadian Pacific Railway Limited and Club Penguin from Google, and I suspect that GP did not refer to either.
Nope. The correct answer is, of course, cerebral paresis.
Re:WTF are they studying?? by dissy · 2012-02-29 12:44 · Score: 2

I think CP violation was used by particle physicists long before the term was hijacked and given a different meaning by law enforcement hysteria.
There's another meaning? Google just turns up the physics one, at least for me.
Well there's your problem! Don't search for Child Porn on Google, search for it on 4chan or motherless instead, you'll get many more non-physics related results!
Re:WTF are they studying?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 13:12 · Score: 0

i used to work at Complete Post, and my wife has mild Cerebral Palsy.
i think there's another meaning.
Re:WTF are they studying?? by jfengel · 2012-02-29 16:56 · Score: 1

Ohhhhh... and now that I know, I wish I didn't. But thanks for telling me anyway.
Re:WTF are they studying?? by ardor · 2012-03-01 00:23 · Score: 1

Didn't you learn from Half-Life 2?
It means Civil Protection, duh.
CP violation leads to pacification, citizen.

--
This sig does not contain any SCO code.

Then unmount it by hhedeshian · 2012-02-29 08:11 · Score: 5, Funny

sudo umount /dev/anomaly

Re:Then unmount it by masternerdguy · 2012-02-29 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

I prefer recalibrating the deflector dish to deal with antimatter anomolies myself.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:Then unmount it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:28 · Score: 0

Why don't you just switch the polarity?
Re:Then unmount it by gorzek · 2012-02-29 09:31 · Score: 2

But where are you going to find an inverted tachyon pulse generator?!

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Then unmount it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:56 · Score: 0

You should just use the antimatter particles to power a strong photon beam!
Oh shit, our ship is gone.
Re:Then unmount it by Heathren-bert · 2012-02-29 09:56 · Score: 1

You reverse the polarity of the tachyon pulse generator. Duh.

Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lol so the very fact that there is a universe, in which we can contemplate the laws of physics, is itself a phenomenon that the standard models can't yet explain? Nice. Seems like a minor hole :)

Re:Interesting... by masternerdguy · 2012-02-29 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

And at one point we couldn't even model two point particles interacting in a collission. Just because we don't know how it works today doesn't mean we never will.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:Interesting... by TheCarp · 2012-02-29 08:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Is that the physicists equivalent of rubbing two sticks together?

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Interesting... by masternerdguy · 2012-02-29 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

All knowledge begins with "Why does X. I don't know, let's find out."

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:Interesting... by TheCarp · 2012-02-29 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

And all humor begins with not taking things too seriously.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Interesting... by Jenka · 2012-02-29 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Followed by "Hey Yall! Watch this!"
Re:Interesting... by damien_kane · 2012-02-29 08:51 · Score: 3, Funny

And all humor begins with not taking things too seriously.
Not all humor
In direct contrast to your statement, I often find my self laughing at people taking things too seriously.
Re:Interesting... by tlhIngan · 2012-02-29 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Lol so the very fact that there is a universe, in which we can contemplate the laws of physics, is itself a phenomenon that the standard models can't yet explain? Nice. Seems like a minor hole :)
The standard model also doesn't explain dark matter, gravity, quantum physics and pile of other things. However, it does explain a lot of things really well, so until we can come up with the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, we're stuck with what we got.
It's like how Newton's equations of motion work extremely well for general everyday human-scale physics, but fail when you go really small or really fast.
Lots of things we understand in physics have limitations, and as long as we observe them, they do hold up.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:14 · Score: 1

Followed by KABOOM!
Re:Interesting... by OzPeter · 2012-02-29 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lol so the very fact that there is a universe, in which we can contemplate the laws of physics, is itself a phenomenon that the standard models can't yet explain? Nice. Seems like a minor hole :)
Hell .. I don't even think there is an understanding as to what gravity is. And thats a lot less existential than "existence/non-existence"

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Interesting... by lennier · 2012-02-29 09:37 · Score: 1

All knowledge begins with "Why does X. I don't know, let's find out."
And ends with "Oww why is my arm being eaten by a dinosaur which is also on fire?"

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Interesting... by renedox · 2012-02-29 09:45 · Score: 1

Followed by "Hey, that was kinda cool, let's do it again!"
Re:Interesting... by ArsenneLupin · 2012-02-29 10:21 · Score: 1

Is that the physicists equivalent of rubbing two sticks together?
You swine! You are supposed to plug the stick into a hole! (and then spin it)
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:35 · Score: 0

We're never going to come up with a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" because anyone that does research in that area is blackballed, ridiculed, etc. Myron Evans comes to mind. Any kids thinking about the problem will be quickly knocked down by their physics teachers. They'll either accept it or lose interest in physics.
And you can consider yourself completely fucked if your "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" allows for phenomenon that is currently not allowed by the standard model. What's the point in even developing a Grand Unified Theory of Everything if the only phenomenon we will accept is what is currently well-known?
Re:Interesting... by budgenator · 2012-02-29 10:55 · Score: 1

Or, "Hey, now this is no bullshit but ...."

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Interesting... by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-02-29 11:48 · Score: 1

All knowledge begins with "Why does X. I don't know, let's find out."
Or with "hmm, if I can figure out how to do this, I can make a metric buttload of money, and get all the babes..."

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Interesting... by Renraku · 2012-02-29 12:18 · Score: 2

We'll never be able to come up with a complete theory of everything until we can 100% model the interactions of the smallest bits of matter in every circumstance. Once upon a time, we could only model the interactions of macro objects, that is, classical mechanics. A lot of wonderful things came out of this, like skyscrapers, airplanes, jet engines, etc. Imagine what will happen when we can model the smallest of particles. Perhaps one day we'll have electrons coming in on one wire, positrons coming in on another, and they'll annihilate each other in a basement reactor to provide a shitload of power to the house. Who knows?

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 12:47 · Score: 1

Not true, fully half of it starts with "Everyone knows" or "there is a consensus"... then again those are almost always wrong.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 12:53 · Score: 0

Simple, mankind hasn't built a tool to actually see the big bang yet. Once that happens the act of viewing will turn the first person to see it into God, who will then collapse the wave function meaning matter will win out of antimatter. Right now antimatter/matter is still in a state of flux until that's resolved.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 13:48 · Score: 0

Wasn't there just an article about how figuring out the rules from within the system is N-P hard?
Re:Interesting... by The+Askylist · 2012-02-29 14:12 · Score: 1

All knowledge that is actually achievable begins with "How", not "Why".
Once "Why" enters the question, the existence of a sentient entity is presupposed in the answer.
That's why "why" questions tend to lead to deities or other nonsense.
Re:Interesting... by thrich81 · 2012-02-29 15:10 · Score: 1

I'd say we "understand" gravity about as well as we do any aspect of the real world -- we have mathematical models which predict its effects to levels of precision beyond our experimental ability to find a discrepancy. The models are known to break down under extreme conditions but those are currently beyond our ability to experiment or observe. All we have to describe any phenomena in the universe are similar predictive models -- there is no deeper "understanding". In the realm of mathematics, where we get to create the initial hypotheses of the system, I would say there is a "deeper" understanding, but the epistemology scholars will probably get all over me for that.
Re:Interesting... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-02-29 19:19 · Score: 1

We are just an experiment that has gone horribly wrong. Before the big bang scientists in an universe made of what we call antimatter decided it would be interresting to test wether a universe of antimatter (what we call matter) would work. It got out of hand in about 10^-200 s and we are living in the debries.
After reading Ignition! my best guess would be the genes of these scientists live on today, in the rocket fuel researchers.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 21:15 · Score: 1

Oblig. xkcd
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 00:07 · Score: 0

The standard model allows for the current universe's excess of normal matter - no problem at all.
Everybody seems to assume that the big bang started with a huge amount of energy - that may turn into equal amounts of matter and antimatter. And the equal amounts is the problem. But the standard model does not specify the initial conditions.
Our universe may very well have started as a big bang with a huge amount of energy, and an excess of normal matter. The energy may have turned into matter and antimatter - the antimatter annihilating normal matter. But laws of conservation would then ensure that normal matter prevailed.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 01:19 · Score: 0

Are you saying:
a) Your arm is on fire?
b) The dinosaur is on fire?
c) Both?
d) None of the above?
Re:Interesting... by RivenAleem · 2012-03-01 02:14 · Score: 1

Well physics isn't the only field to suffer this problem. There's no standard model to explain the phenomenon of Justin Bieber's success. It seems like something that should be explainable, but it isn't.
Re:Interesting... by rmelton · 2012-03-05 04:39 · Score: 1

Well.. The fundamental theorem of Algebra can't be proved using algebra. (for other examples see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_completeness_theorem)
I personally don't accept that that is the reason for your observation though.

4chan reference by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-02-29 08:14 · Score: 1

the standard model, allows for a low level of CP violation

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.

Re:4chan reference by mug+funky · 2012-02-29 13:04 · Score: 1

so the antimatter posted CP and got V&?

James Branch Cabell by Kupfernigk · 2012-02-29 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

I rather think J B Cabell preceded MiB. Refer to "The Silver Stallion", if you can find a copy.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Indeed by Waffle+Iron · 2012-02-29 08:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Under the highest magnification of our latest scanning tunneling microscopes, new images of these anti particles reveal that they sport tiny goatees.

Re:Indeed by rla3rd · 2012-02-29 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Had me scared... I first read this as tiny goatses.
Re:Indeed by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-02-29 09:05 · Score: 1

"If you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:11 · Score: 0

Is that them quantum tunnels I've heard so much about?
Re:Indeed by ArsenneLupin · 2012-02-29 10:23 · Score: 1

No, the "hole" charge carriers in a semiconductor are not really antiparticles...
Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 15:18 · Score: 0

In Soviet USSR... maybe

I've always wanted an Antimatter Anomaly Mount by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:16 · Score: 0

I'm going back to WoW.

Anomaly you say? by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-29 08:17 · Score: 2

It should be possible to detect these anomalies by throwing bolts at them and observing the reaction. If you don't have a bolt, the older tool used was a rock covered in a handkerchief with a string tied to it.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Sanity check by PatPending · 2012-02-29 08:19 · Score: 1

1. Are the cables properly connected?

2. Are the instruments properly calibrated?

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)

To the point: "reality bias?" by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-02-29 08:20 · Score: 1

Could be because we use "ordinary" matter to study the phenomena?

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.

Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by FudRucker · 2012-02-29 09:24 · Score: 1

maybe so, since there is both matter and anti-matter then maybe they need to use quantum-matter...

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by yotto · 2012-02-29 11:06 · Score: 2

Could be because we use "ordinary" matter to study the phenomena?
Short answer: No.
Whether or not we are Matter or Antimatter (in which case we'd call that matter, but that's another... ahem... matter altogether) doesn't change the fact that there is a lot more of one of the two types around. Something caused that. What we don't (or do we, now?) know is WHY.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by neyla · 2012-02-29 18:58 · Score: 1

Actually, the theory goes that there isn't "a lot more" of normal matter around, just that there was a -tiny- imbalance in the creation of matter/antimatter such that perhaps 49% was antimatter and 51% was matter.
After the annihilation completed, we where left with 2% matter surplus, and that's what the universe today consists of.
Kinda mindblowing that even the universe, huge as it is, contains only a tiny fraction of the particles that went into the big bang. "big" really is an understatement.
Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by justforgetme · 2012-02-29 19:50 · Score: 1

-tiny- imbalance in the creation of matter/antimatter
would explain all this empty space....

--
-- no sig today
Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-03-01 04:46 · Score: 1

-tiny- imbalance in the creation of matter/antimatter
would explain all this empty space....
And "foamy" layout of matter in the universe.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:To the point: "reality bias?" by painandgreed · 2012-03-01 05:26 · Score: 1

After the annihilation completed, we where left with 2% matter surplus, and that's what the universe today consists of.
Not quite. The early universe was very hot and all energy because anytime matter of anytime might be created it was turned back into energy. As the universe cooled and we had nucleogenesis and matter was created, it would collide with any antimatter and turn back into energy, only to reform into matter again as the universe cooled more. Given this process, any, even a very slight inequality would cause one type of matter to gain dominance very quickly at an early point of the universe where everything was still very dense and well mixed. So, even a .0001% surplus of matter in the first generation of nucleosynthesis would result in something like a .0002% in the second, and so forth till finally, only matter was left.
Imagine playing a game where you had a ton of pennies and flipped them all. For every pair of heads and tails, you re-flipped those two coins. However any left over coins without a pair, you left alone. With equal probablility, you'd end up with one or two coins left over which would then be paired up with the results of the next flip. However, if there was a slightly better chance of heads showing up, the number of unpaired coins that are heads would continue to grow with each round of pairing them up with the tails. Eventually, all coins would end up as heads and you'd stop flipping coins.

42? by PatPending · 2012-02-29 08:28 · Score: 0

As long as 42 remains the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, I'm okay with it.

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)

Re:42? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:47 · Score: 1

It is 41.99999999999999999997 in the Antimatter universe.
Re:42? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-02-29 08:52 · Score: 1

It's 43 on Leap Day.
Re:42? by oodaloop · 2012-02-29 08:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Or on an Intel P5 Pentium.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:42? by leromarinvit · 2012-02-29 12:15 · Score: 1

I read that as "Pentium 5" (as in P2, P3, P4...), and thought hey, finally proof that parallell universes do exist - and you just crossed over from one!

--
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.

Opposite direction by reasterling · 2012-02-29 08:47 · Score: 1

I am not a physicist, but couldn't the antimater simply be thrown backwards into what we would call the past.

--
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God

Re:Opposite direction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:10 · Score: 0

I am not a physicist, but couldn't the antimater simply be thrown backwards into what we would call the past.
Physics doesn't really differentiate directions in time (oversimplification alert). However, just like if I throw a ball "into the future" as you put it, it still exists before I throw it. So if anti-mater was thrown into the past, the question would still be, why did it stop existing at some point? Matter (energy really) isn't created or destroy and that rule applies no matter which way you point time's arrow.
Re:Opposite direction by Muad'Dave · 2012-02-29 09:27 · Score: 2

Read this

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:Opposite direction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:51 · Score: 1

I am not a physicist, but couldn't the antimater simply be thrown backwards into what we would call the past.
No, this has never been observed on antimatter. It behaves normal in time. You're confusing antimatter (existing: we can and do create antimatter) with tachions (hypothetical or Science-Fiction).
Re:Opposite direction by werepants · 2012-02-29 12:06 · Score: 2

Antimatter does, in some respects, travel backwards in time. A positron behaves precisely as an electron would if it were going the opposite direction in time.
Re:Opposite direction by lgw · 2012-02-29 12:26 · Score: 2

Except that the whole point of TFA (I know, I know) is that it doesn't quite. There must be some sort of symmetry violation in order for the universe to be matter-dominated.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Opposite direction by reasterling · 2012-02-29 13:30 · Score: 1

So if anti-mater was thrown into the past, the question would still be, why did it stop existing at some point?
Why would it have to stop existing?
In truth I do not think time as a dimention even exist. ;)

--
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God

Summary goes a bit too far... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:49 · Score: 5, Informative

The research is certainly interesting and important (at least to physicists), but it demonstrates CP violation only in certain relatively rare particles, the neutral D mesons. CP violation has been known to exist for a while (in K and B mesons), so that really is not that ground breaking. On the other hand, as far as I know, these effects are far too small to account for the matter/antimatter imbalance in the universe and additional mechanisms are required.

Re:Summary goes a bit too far... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:37 · Score: 0

If you read TFA, the news is that the amount of violation being measured is on the order of 0.8%, which is higher than the Standard Model predicts there should be.
That itself is actually pretty news worthy. If it is enough to explain imbalance without additional mechanisms, even better. I'm not sure if we are at that point yet.
Re:Summary goes a bit too far... by physburn · 2012-02-29 15:05 · Score: 2

CP violation has been observe in every weak decay that transform a quark from one generation to another, using the weak force. The weak force normally acts between a up-like quark and down-like quark in the same generation, but there is a miss-match between the down quarks as since by the W particle and the down quarks since by the Higgs that generate the masses of the particles, this leads to an additional matrix, the CKM, in the action of the W particle on quarks, leads to transmutations between the three generation of quarks and the decay of heavy quark generations to lighter ones. The K mesons and the Beauty mesons the a single complex phase of CKM matrix is responsible for difference between the matter quarks and the anti-matter quarks and this is well describe by the CKM matrix. This result for the D meson (D^0 = cd) is much larger at 0.2% than the predicted value of around 0.01% and is truely a hint of new CP violating physics.

Fermilab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 08:53 · Score: 0

Wow, Fermilab is in the process of being shut-down and they're still producing bleeding edge physics.
I wonder why our politcos just didn't outsource our research labs to China. Oh, wait...

Did they check? by Panaflex · 2012-02-29 08:58 · Score: 0

They should check the damn cables... the antimatter timer is off by 60 picoseconds again.

--
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.

Not to be an ass, but by sl4shd0rk · 2012-02-29 09:19 · Score: 1

Did'ja check those cables first?

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

It would be weird by roman_mir · 2012-02-29 09:27 · Score: 1

It would be very weird if all the matter and all the antimatter that was created just got all those matter and antimatter particles close enough to destroy themselves. I think it's not a surprise at all, there definitely were clumps of matter that never saw a single antimatter particles, and the opposite should be true, so some matter and antimatter got in a fight and some didn't. I actually wonder if there are galaxies or at least star systems that are completely made of antimatter and have very little matter there?

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:It would be weird by werepants · 2012-02-29 12:07 · Score: 1

I actually wonder if there are galaxies or at least star systems that are completely made of antimatter and have very little matter there?
That's exactly the problem. Those galaxies haven't been detected, and so, as far as we can tell, there's a huge bias against anti-matter in this universe.

Perfectly symmetrical Big Bang? by tqk · 2012-02-29 09:32 · Score: 1

I have not read TFA (sue me). However in this and in many other physics questions, I often wonder if they're over-thinking the problem.

So, Big Bang goes off sending some amount of matter and anti-matter flying off in all directions. The matter and anti-matter in close proximity to each other annihilate each other. Some matter or anti-matter will be left in pockets locally assuming inequal amounts of each landed in proximity to each other.

Why even bother to postulate unequal amounts of each were created when the leftovers of each are just on the other side of the Universe from each other and can't possibly interact with each other at that distance? Wouldn't it be simpler to assume they were equal amounts, but what's left can't possibly interact?

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Perfectly symmetrical Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:45 · Score: 0

Why even bother to postulate unequal amounts of each were created when the leftovers of each are just on the other side of the Universe from each other and can't possibly interact with each other at that distance? Wouldn't it be simpler to assume they were equal amounts, but what's left can't possibly interact?
Good thinking, but physicists have come up with all of these easy ideas before. The reason you can't explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry this way is that matter and antimatter would flow across the boundaries between the matter and antimatter domains of the universe and constantly interact, producing gamma rays with particular energies. These would be visible from all the way across the universe. So unless you can figure out how to clear all the antimatter from the visible universe (putting antimatter domains outside the observable volume), this idea doesn't work. Clearing antimatter from the observable universe but not the entire universe seems like it would require even weirder new physics than just clearing it from everywhere.
Re:Perfectly symmetrical Big Bang? by lgw · 2012-02-29 12:27 · Score: 1

Well, it works if you assume the matter and antimatter pockets were (significantly) larger than the observable universe, but that one of those untestable hypotheses.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Question to physicists by martas · 2012-02-29 09:35 · Score: 1

How do we know that there is an imbalance of matter and antimatter? Perhaps this is only the case locally in the observable universe? Is it at all possible that in the whole of the universe there is in fact no imbalance, and for some reason matter and antimatter formed "pockets" where one dominates the other, and we're just observing one of these pockets?

--
weinersmith

Re:Question to physicists by Viol8 · 2012-02-29 23:18 · Score: 1

I guess the argument is that if significant amounts of anti matter were still around then you'd see unexplained energy bursts in the sky where some annihilated with matter. Since we don't see this then either there isn't much anti matter around or something is keeping anti matter and matter apart. Occams razor says its the former explanation.
Re:Question to physicists by painandgreed · 2012-03-01 06:44 · Score: 1

How do we know that there is an imbalance of matter and antimatter? Perhaps this is only the case locally in the observable universe? Is it at all possible that in the whole of the universe there is in fact no imbalance, and for some reason matter and antimatter formed "pockets" where one dominates the other, and we're just observing one of these pockets?
Basically, because we can demonstrate that the early universe was dense enough when all matter (normal and anti) was created that it would have been quite well mixed, and that local islands of one or the other would be highly improbable. Thus, even if it did manage to clump, we'd be seeing cosmological cases of anilation that we aren't detecting.

Sci-Fi nails another one! Michael McCollum's Maker by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:44 · Score: 0

Wow! So Michael McCollum got it right in the Makers series where the difference between matter and anti-matter ends up being a primary plot point... which I won't spoil, but maybe these researchers should peak ahead to the last chapter of the second book, Procyon's Promise, to see what the answer is ;-)

They keep talking about 5-sigma... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:49 · Score: 0

Obviously they don't work in my company, where every employee needs to go to 6-sigma training.
Then again, I doubt my company could even come close to building a huge particle accelerator... most managers couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, despite all their '6-sigma' training. :-P

Sci-Fi nails another one! Michael McCollum's Maker by MCRocker · 2012-02-29 09:49 · Score: 1

Wow! So Michael McCollum got it right in the Makers series where the difference between matter and anti-matter ends up being a primary plot point... which I won't spoil, but maybe these researchers should peak ahead to the last chapter of the second book, Procyon's Promise, to see what the answer is ;-)

Sorry for accidental duplicate AC post.

--
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)

Re:Sci-Fi nails another one! Michael McCollum's Ma by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-02-29 09:53 · Score: 1

Well, if you have enough monkeys banging on enough typewriters...

--
#DeleteChrome

Peak Antimatter - An Ecological Disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:02 · Score: 0

Isn't it obvious why there's so little anti-matter? Aliens burned it all up to in their warp drives!

Stupid by wzzzzrd · 2012-02-29 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative

That's what accepted theoretical physics tell us

Your knowledge is approximately 20 years old.

Yours sincerely,
Nal Lerpil,
Accepted Theoretical Physicist

--
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 11:08 · Score: 0

Yeah, I thought this was old news. Relatively speaking. I thought it was floated a couple of years ago.
I could be wrong as I am not an accepted theoretical physicist, just a layman who feeds on the scraps of science news....
Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 03:31 · Score: 0

While you were being smug, you forgot to explain whether that 20 year old knowledge was good or not. Or do you think we should put an expiration date on all knowledge, say 20 years?

How our universe was created by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 10:46 · Score: 0

Some people in some other dimension got curious about matter and antimatter in their universe, and built a huge particle accelerator to smash atoms together, and after working out a bunch of bugs and chasing a bunch anomalies, they collided the wrong two particles.

Evidence For Antimatter Anomaly Mounts by Hognoxious · 2012-02-29 11:40 · Score: 1

They've found antimatter anomaly saddles, bridles and bits?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Sci-Fi nails another one! Michael McCollum's Ma by MCRocker · 2012-02-29 11:56 · Score: 1

Actually, there's an error with my post (accidentally AC)... McCollum got the idea from Feynman. Basically that antimatter is just regular matter going backwards in time from the big crunch. So, not a glorious case of Sci-Fi presaging science, but a case of Sci-Fi rehashing interesting science.

--
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)

Re:Sci-Fi nails another one! Michael McCollum's Ma by MCRocker · 2012-02-29 11:58 · Score: 1

Argh! There's an error with my post... McCollum got the idea from Feynman. Basically that antimatter is just regular matter going backwards in time from the big crunch. So, not a glorious case of Sci-Fi presaging science, but a case of Sci-Fi rehashing interesting science.

Sorry folks. Bad post and reply to my own post.

--
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)

Winner gets to write history by tomhath · 2012-02-29 12:23 · Score: 1

FTA:

charge-parity (CP) violation—would have allowed normal matter to prevail over antimatter so that normal matter could go on to form all of the stuff we see in the universe today

If the violation had been the other way around we'd probably still call ourselves the ones that matter. Or something. Just like in war, the victor gets to write the history and physics books.

The mystery by paiute · 2012-02-29 13:04 · Score: 1

We need to find out why matter is called matter and antimatter is called antimatter and not the other way around.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:The mystery by aiht · 2012-02-29 15:08 · Score: 1

We need to find out why matter is called matter and antimatter is called antimatter and not the other way around.
Oh that's easy - it's because protons have a positive charge so they're 'normal' matter, but anti-protons have a negative charge, so they're 'anti' matter.

But what I want to know by TheInternetGuy · 2012-02-29 16:32 · Score: 1

What I really want to know is if it is possible for antimatter to move faster than the speed of darkness.

--
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame

Re:But what I want to know by ledow · 2012-02-29 21:13 · Score: 2

The speed of darkness is always faster than the speed of light. No matter how fast light gets somewhere, the darkness has always beaten it to it.
(C) Terry Pratchett

Hand made cars are the best by martin-boundary · 2012-02-29 18:33 · Score: 1

Didn't Lincoln die like in 1865? That's a pretty long half life for Navigators.

Re:feeding the troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 00:46 · Score: 0

Pro Tip: You missed "whose" and "to".

Re:feeding the troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 07:06 · Score: 0

Hot damn! Angry Aspies with mod points!

Slashdot Mirror

Evidence For Antimatter Anomaly Mounts

147 comments