Science unplugged

Questions Ideas Thoughts

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem

Developing matter and anti-matter asymmetry in a simplified world model

Matter and anti-matter arise with the same probability in the Universe. However, we see mostly matter in the universe. By developing a simplified world model and simulate the developing of such a simplified world it can be shown that such systems can be very bi-stable, despite the fact that the initial creation of matter and anti-matter is evenly distributed, always ending up in a matter or anti-matter world.

 A central concept of the arising of matter is that 1 the distribution between matter and anti-matter should be even. To better understand how asymmetries between matter and anti-matter evolve, a simplified world model was developed in order to simulate the distribution of matter and anti-matter in time. In the following the basic elements and rules of this simplified world is explained.

To keep the model as simple as possible the basic components and functions of the simplified world was reduced to only 4 basic parts and 3 functions such as:

Basic Parts:

e-                     electron

e+                    positron

Sr                    Spin right

Sl                     Spin left

Basic functions:

(e-) + (Sx)  – > (P-)

An e- particle can merge with a Sx Spin to a Anti Proton P-

(e+) + (Sx)  – > (P+)

An e+ particle can merge with a Sx Spin to a Proton P+

(P-) + (P+) – > (e+) + (Sx)  + (e+) + (Sx)  

A Proton and Anti Proton can collide and disintegrate again back to its components

As you can see in the basic functions, 2 more possible particles evolve besides the basic ones. 

proton and the counterpart an anti-proton. Both could eventually combine with the electrons and positrons to atoms and their counterpart anti-atoms but this is not considered relevant for the basic distribution of matter and anti-matter.

The basic functions have been limited to the absolute necessary ones considered important for this simplified world model.

As a starting point of the simulation of such a simplified world we have a certain fixed number of electrons and positrons and 3 possible events given by the 3 possible defined functions such as:

a new proton arises

a new anti-proton arises

a proton and anti-proton (if a pair exist) disintegrate again

With each step within time of the simulation the probabilities of those 3 events are calculated and based on those probabilities one is randomly chosen to happen. To keep the calculation of the probabilities as visible and easy as possible a 2-step approach was introduced to determine 1 of the 3 possible events.

First step is to calculate the basic probability that a disintegration happens or a creation happens based on the quantity distribution of the different particles currently existing.

Based on this calculation a random choice is taken if the event is a creation event or a disintegration event.

In case it’s a creation event its again randomly chosen with a fixed probability of 50% if the event is an arise of a proton or anti-proton.

Figure 1. shows the basic flowchart of the simulation algorithm used:

Results

Running these simulations, the distribution between matter and anti-matter in the simplified world always develops in time into an asymmetric matter or anti-matter version never keeping a symmetric version of the world.

First evenly created matter and anti-matter dominate the simplified world but in time one or the other type of matter will dominate evolving a single type matter or anti-matter world. 

The probability to end as matter or anti-matter world is even. None of those is preferred.

This is simply based on the fact that a disintegration can only happen between a pair of matter and anti-matter. However, on proton and anti-proton level they are created with the same probability but not absolutely even as pairs. 

A single proton or anti-proton without a partner cannot disintegrate.

These very small differences sum at the end up and lead to a single type matter or anti-matter world. 

Figure 2. shows the typical development of the quantities for the different particles in time of the simplified world starting with 1000 electrons, 1000 positrons, 0 protons and 0 anti-protons. It’s ending with only anti-protons and positrons.

Figure 3. shows the typical development of the quantities for the different particles in time of the simplified world starting with 1000 electrons, 1000 positrons, 0 protons and 0 anti-protons. It’s ending with only protons and electrons.

Methods 

The computer model was written with PureBasic using a strong random number generating algorithm.

References

  1. https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

Author Contributions Statement

WP wrote the main manuscript text and prepared figures 1–3. 

Competing financial interests 

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Reality, superposition, movement and force

Causing reality and the principle of superposition a force?

To get an idea about the mechanism of force I would like to exemplify a very important experiment of physics:

The diffraction of light by a double slit. 

If light passes a double slit without being detected which way the light took for each light quantum a typical interference pattern appears behind the double slit as it is typical for waves. The light waves interfere with each other to build maxima and minima. This even works if we only send one light quantum at a time through the experimental arrangement.

As soon as we start to detect which way the light quantum took through the double slit the interference pattern disappears. The facts about where what and when we observe an object is changing the behavior of the observed object!

That’s clearly a kind of force as it’s changing the possible whereabouts of the photons. By looking at them at different places we can force them into different regions.

So I tried to setup a simulation program with very less ingrediencies.

So called points of existents in a matrix simulating space. In order to make them move they go into superposition and do have only a growing area of a possible whereabout. And they are able to interact with other points of existents. But by doing so they both drop out of superposition and get a new fixed real whereabout from which they start again going both into superposition again.

To simplify the basic mechanic behind let’s assume a flat universe containing two points of existence with a ‘temperature’ above zero so that they will move around. Unobserved the attribute ‘where’ of those points in this universe stays in a superposition of all possible whereabouts of the points. 

Those points have the capability to observe each other as kind of exchanging information about their current whereabout in case they ‘collide’.

When and if they collide is random controlled through the probability of presence itself and a second component I call observation appetite which is a measure for how often in time the points try and look for a partner to collide with, at an out of the possible whereabouts randomly chosen place.

For both points random quasi whereabouts are determined controlled by the probability of presence. If those quasi whereabouts are close enough to each other a collision appears and those whereabouts are fixed getting real ,causing the superposition to collide if not they are discarded keeping the points in their superposition.

If we start this scenario from 2 different places for those two points the superposition of each point is growing in time around the points initial position. To keep it simple we assume that the area of the probability of presence grows absolute equal with a certain speed around the initial position building a circle. Within this circle the point has the same probability of presence at each place.

But as there is no possible observer at the beginning they stay in superposition. At some time it might be that the two superposition starting two overlap as illustrated in figure a

Fig a

From this point onwards it is possible that the superpositions of both points collapse and a new ‘where’ in this flat universe is defined as the momentary whereabouts of both points. This happens when those points ‘collide’ in this universe. If and where such an observation or ‘collision’ happens is dependent on the probability of presence from both points and their appetite of observation. 

With describing the probability of presence for a point it’s implicated that there is always everywhere an observer. But that is not the case. If there is no possible observer a point in superposition will never drop out of its superposition. To give a probability of presence for a place without a possible observer is somehow misleading.  

If we put some more points into this 2 dimensional space the whole scenario is staring to look like in fig b

Fig b

Many different areas of probabilities of presence are growing, collapsing and overlapping. Only within the overlapping areas a reciprocatively observation a ‘collision’ is possible.

Once such an observation happens between two points the superpositions of those points collapse defining a new ‘where’ and starts again from that new ‘where’.

From there it can be observed any time again from any other point it has an overlapping area of probability of presence.

This simple mechanism between those points of existence leads to a certain affinity between those points. We just created a force between them some kind of a simple gravity.

The very basic concept of superposition and observing alone is able to create a force between the object and observer simply because of statistical reasons. It is a statistical pressure or drag which is causing the effects interpreted as force. Its comparable to the Quanten-Zeno-Effekt where you can change the behavior of a system by observation.

By modifying the shape and rule of the developing superposition area you can even give them a kind of directed impulse, inertia and mass.

It’s quite astonishing that a set of simple rules of superposition and observation generate movements and a kind of force.

Below you can find a basic simulation run showing the developing affinity of the points.

Willi Penker

Hilbert Hotel

Magic gains or losses? In Hilbert’s hotel you can mess around with infinity and you end up with magical gains or losses. How can that be?

In the Hotel Hilbert you have an infinite number of occupied rooms. The Hotel is full booked.

In each room is exactly only 1 guest.

A new guest arrives and is asking for a room. The smart receptionist has an idea…

He goes to the first room and tells the guest from room #1 to move on to room #2 and the guest from room #2 also should move on to the next room…..and so on…

By having that said room #1 gets free and he can give it to the new guest.

As you can see we created a new free room in a fully occupied Hotel. Did we?

No. The idea is simple but you do not actual create a new free room or extra space out of infinity…

In fact you borrow it from a extra space not mentioned or you break with the rule that in every room only 1 guest is allowed.

What is happening? 

If you think it over and take a closer look you recognize that once you started this guest movement from now on to the end of time at least one guest is always on the hallway or if you do not have a hallway and the rooms have a direct connection to each other there is always at least 1 room occupied now with 2 guests.

Once this shift is started it runs forever. You can’t finish it. You will never ever have a stable Hotel anymore with a fixed assignment between the guests and rooms. There is always a movement included which never ends.

So it is impossible to get the Hotel from a fixed and stable assignment between the rooms and guests from situation 1 before the new guest arrived into a situation 2 where the new guest got this new room but all other guest have a fixed assignment again. Somebody will always be on the hallway or in another guest’s room.

Taking this into account you see that there is nothing magical going on in the Hotel Hilbert.

Shifting assignments between infinite sets cannot be finished and will always have a disturbance within which cannot be removed. Whatever gain or loss you get by these kinds of shifts you just borrow it from an extra space which you added as silent assumption by starting the shift. 

By not recognizing this silent assumption you end up with unexplained gains or losses. But if you recognize it you see that you did not gain or lose anything. You just borrowed it from an extra space added (Hallway) or by breaking the assignment rule ( 2 guests in one room).

I tried once to make this point clear with a reader comment or letter on an Article I read about the Hotel Hilbert.

I got this analogous answer: But if you could somehow inform all guest simultaneously and move all guests somehow from one room to another then it would work….

So in other words…if I just could make out of a 1 a 2 somehow. Why would I need Hotel Hilbert? If somehow is allowed everything will work.

If I do not need to know anymore how I can do it, every assumption is valid…even 1 = 2. Somehow it could work.

Willi Penker

Hawkings radiation

Ok that is a hard one…

It all starts with vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.

See Wkipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation :

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its „naked“ charge.

If this happens near the event horizon of a black hole one partner of such a pair can fall into the black hole leaving the other one outside. This way the particle becomes real and could escape the black hole. It’s said that In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy.

Why…?

Why can’t it be the other way around and the particle which escapes has a negative energy? Taking away energy from the outside universe and the black hole would grow.

I never got that point why only partners with negative energy can fall into the black hole.

Willi Penker

In general, how should a black hole evolve?

When I try to understand how a black hole could probably evolve I see some issues which I cannot answer myself. 

Here I try to explain the aspect of such a collapse with which I have issues. 

Let’s start with an object like this:

You see some mass around a center. The arrows between the center and the mass parts representing a kind of force which keeps the mass parts in place so that the object is for the moment stable.

If we now virtually reduce these forces we allow the mass parts to get closer together and move towards the center. 

That is what would happen in a star if it runs out of fuel and it cools down.

By moving closer towards the center energy gets converted (potential energy).

This process must free the exact same amount of energy as it would take to revert it back and push all mass parts out again to where they have been before.

If this process would continue in a collapse the mass parts would get closer and closer freeing more and more energy. Remember It needs to free the same energy as it would take to get it apart again. 

When we get close to a black hole this would virtually free an infinite amount of energy.

The circle in RED is the virtual but not yet existing event horizon from the object. If it would collapse beyond that point we would have a black hole.

But can we really pass that point?

Remember with each movement towards the center it frees the same amount of energy its needed to take it apparat. So if its hitting the event horizon it must have freed in sum the same amount of energy as you need to take it completely apparat again. To take it apparat from that moment you would need light speed for each particle, which would take infinite energy ..so it would have freed infinite energy…

Something smells fishy…

It doesn’t look like anything can ever pass an event horizon without producing an infinite amount of energy.

Let’s take a second look at it from a different point of view.

Virtually we create a neutron star which is one micron away from a black hole…almost one but not yet but still for whatever reason stable.

This star has a universe of its own besides another particle. 

Now we shoot this particle from way outside into the direction of the star. It will get caught by the gravity of the star and pulled towards it. Getting faster and faster. At the point it hits the star it would be already extreme heavy as it would have reached almost light speed. 

With each step we make this theoretical star a little bit denser towards a black hole this energy and mass is going against infinite at the time it would hit the star. You could in theory create as much mass as you want. Even more as our whole universe contains before that star becomes a black whole.

Or let’s put two windows and a small tunnel into the star, allowing a photon to pass thru the star and leave it again on the other side.

The lights frequency gets shifted to shorter wavelength on its travel towards the star. It pass the star and then gets shifted back during the leave. But if we make this star denser and denser the frequency shift tends again against infinite and with it the energy of the photon.

Somewhere must be an error.

Willi Penker

© 2024 Science unplugged

Theme von Anders NorénHoch ↑