Could the primeval antimatter "be among us"?

  • I
  • Thread starter Gerinski
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Antimatter
In summary, the conversation discusses the existence of matter and antimatter in the early universe and how the dominance of matter over antimatter is still a mystery. It is suggested that instead of annihilation, matter and antimatter may have combined to form other particles, such as mesons, which eventually decayed into the particles we see today. However, it is stated that this is not possible in the Standard Model, where the matter and antimatter sectors are independent and cannot interact with each other. The labeling of particles as matter or antimatter is also discussed as a convention and may change in the future with the development of a new BSM theory.
  • #1
Gerinski
323
15
Kindly allow a me to post this layman question. In popular science it is often stated that the very early universe should have produced approximately equal amounts of particles and antiparticles, and that the dominance of matter over antimatter in the current universe is somehow a mystery. They often point that a particle and its antiparticle should have annihilated releasing EM radiation as a result.

My question is, particles did not necessarily have to meet their antiparticle, and in that case they needed not annihilate but could form other composite particles with different fate than annihilation.

For example mesons are made up of a quark and an antiquark. They are not stable in our current low energy universe, but they might have survived some time in the energetic early universe. If I'm not misinformed they eventually decay into electrons, neutrinos and photons. So this is an example where initial matter + antimatter could have combined into actual particles and decayed into particles which are common today, without suffering matter-antimatter annihilation.

I have more doubts regarding baryons, this website states that "the neutron contains more quarks than anti-quarks, whereas the anti-neutron contains more anti-quarks than quarks." I doubt that this is correct, but if it was it could also explain where antiquarks went to, into our everyday protons and neutrons.

https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...e-technical-concepts/what-are-anti-particles/

At any rate the question is, is it not possible that primeval antimatter instead of meeting their antiparticles and annihilating did combine with other particles (some of the results eventually decaying) forming our familiar universe?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Gerinski said:
So this is an example where initial matter + antimatter could have combined into actual particles and decayed into particles which are common today, without suffering matter-antimatter annihilation.
It is not called annihilation, but the result is the same - both quark and antiquark are gone.
Gerinski said:
I have more doubts regarding baryons, this website states that "the neutron contains more quarks than anti-quarks, whereas the anti-neutron contains more anti-quarks than quarks."
It is correct, and it is exactly the asymmetry we see today: protons and neutrons, but (nearly) no antiprotons and antineutrons.
Gerinski said:
At any rate the question is, is it not possible that primeval antimatter instead of meeting their antiparticles and annihilating did combine with other particles (some of the results eventually decaying) forming our familiar universe?
No.
 
  • #4
In Standard Model, quark and lepton sectors are independent (there is no interaction which turns a quark into lepton(s)), and therefore labels for "matter" and "antimatter" can be assigned independently, and *differently*, in these sectors.

IOW: you may well decide to label electrons to be "antimatter" and positrons "matter". In such a picture, our Universe does contain a lot of antimatter (in the form of electrons).

While you are working in SM, this labeling is only a convention. If we'd ever arrive at a general consensus of a BSM theory linking quarks and leptons, it may well turn out that electrons really *are* antimatter.
 

What is primeval antimatter?

Primeval antimatter is a theoretical form of antimatter that is believed to have existed in the early universe, shortly after the Big Bang. It is thought to have been created in equal amounts to normal matter, but has since been largely annihilated, leaving behind only trace amounts.

Why is there a belief that primeval antimatter could still exist?

Scientists believe that there may be remnants of primeval antimatter still present in the universe because of the asymmetry in the amount of matter and antimatter that was created during the Big Bang. This asymmetry, known as the baryon asymmetry, suggests that there may be pockets of antimatter that were not fully annihilated.

How would we detect primeval antimatter?

Detecting primeval antimatter is a challenging task, as it would require advanced technology and techniques. One approach would be to look for specific signatures of antimatter in cosmic rays or other high-energy cosmic events. Another method would be to search for antiparticles, such as antiprotons or antineutrons, in cosmic rays or in the remnants of the early universe.

What would be the implications of finding primeval antimatter?

If primeval antimatter were to be discovered, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and its evolution. It would also shed light on the fundamental laws of physics and could potentially lead to advancements in fields such as cosmology, particle physics, and astrophysics.

Could primeval antimatter pose a threat to our existence?

There is no evidence to suggest that primeval antimatter poses a threat to our existence. Even if it were to exist in large quantities, it is likely that it would be contained within distant galaxies or intergalactic space, making it unlikely to interact with us. Additionally, the annihilation of antimatter produces energy and radiation, which would not be able to travel great distances without being dissipated.

Similar threads

B Matter/antimatter hybrid atomic structures?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
21
Views
3K
I What is the latest discovery in tetraquarks by LHCb?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Matter/antimatter collisons between "unlike" particles?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Strange quarks, Strange stars and Strangelets?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Matter/antimatter annihilation and conservation of mass
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
4K
A Interested in the LHC safety assessment - questions about strangelets
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
I What would a hypothetical quark-quark collision yield?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
A Is Negative Mass Related to Antimatter in Physics?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
18
Views
3K
I How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
B So, a black hole and an antimatter star bump into each other....
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top