Category Archives: Big Bang Science Theory

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Why is there more matter than antimatter?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

According to the Big Bang theory, their should be equal parts of matter and antimatter in our Universe. Conventional wisdom states that they should have annihilated each other, resulting in radiation. If that were true, we should have a Universe filled with only radiation. However, the Universe we observe consists of both radiation and matter.  If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our Universe, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. Therefore, it is natural to ask, “What happened to all the antimatter?”

Let’s start with a simple definition of antimatter. Antimatter is the mirror image of matter. For example, if we consider an electron matter, the positron is antimatter. The positron has the same mass and structure as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron has a negative charge, and the positron has a positive charge.

In 2010 – 2013, scientists using the Large Hadron Collider have shown glimpses of evidence that suggest antimatter decays faster than matter, but the numbers are relatively small and do not fully explain why we have a Universe of matter and radiation. In addition, there is not full agreement in the scientific community regarding the different rates of decay of matter versus antimatter.

Several theories float within the scientific community to resolve the missing antimatter issue. The currently favored theories (baryogenesis theories) employ sub-disciplines of physics and statistics to describe possible mechanisms. The baryogenesis theories start out with the same premise, namely the early universe had both baryons (an elementary particle made up of three quarks) and antibaryons (the mirror image of the baryons). At this point, the universe underwent baryogenesis. Baryogenesis is a generic term for theoretical physical processes that produce an asymmetry (inequality) between matter and antimatter. The asymmetry, per the baryogenesis theories, resulted in significant amounts of residual matter, as opposed to antimatter. The major differences between the various baryogenesis theories are in the details of the interactions between elementary particles. Baryogenesis essentially boils down to the creation of more matter than antimatter. In other words, it requires the physical laws of the universe to become asymmetrical. We need to understand what this means.

The symmetry of physical laws is widely accepted by the scientific community. What does “symmetry” mean in this context?

  • First, it means that the physical laws do not change with time. If a physical law is valid today, it continues to be valid tomorrow, and any time in the future. This is a way of saying that a time translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Second, it means that the physical laws do not change with distance. If the physical law is valid on one side of the room, it is valid on the other side of the room. Therefore, any space translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Lastly, it means that the physical laws do not change with rotation. For example, the gravitational attraction between two masses does not change when the masses rotate in space, as long as the distance between them remains fixed. Therefore, any rotational translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.

This is what we mean by the symmetry of physical laws.

Next, we will address the asymmetry of physical laws. In this context, “asymmetry” means that the symmetry of physical laws no longer applies. For example, a law of physics may be valid in a specific location, but not in another, when both locations are equivalent. Is this possible? Maybe. There has been experimental evidence that the asymmetry is possible (a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws). For example, radioactive decay and high-energy particle accelerators have provided evidence that asymmetry is possible. However, the evidence is far from conclusive. Most importantly, it does not fully explain the magnitude of the resulting matter of the universe.

This casts serious doubt on the baryogenesis theories. In addition, the baryogenesis theories appear biased by our knowledge of the outcome. By making certain (questionable) assumptions, and using various scientific disciplines, they result in the answer we already know to be true. The universe consists of matter, not antimatter. Therefore, baryogenesis theories may not be an objective explanation.

Obviously, the absence of antimatter is a profound mystery of science. Future work at the Large Hadron Collider may help us resolve this mystery. Based on their current findings, we are close, but do not have the total answer yet. If there are any breakthroughs, I will post them.

 

 

Close-up of a fingerprint being examined under a magnifying glass with a blue-toned background.

The Top Five Unsolved Mysteries of Science

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , , , , ,

There are numerous unsolved mysteries in science. In this post, I will delineate the top five that I consider the most profound.

  1. What caused the Big Bang? Cosmologist are in strong consensus that the Big Bang resulted in the evolution of the Universe, but there is no scientific consensus as to what caused the Big Bang. There are several theories, including one that I put forward in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. However, none of the current theories, including the one that I forward in my book, have garnered consensus in the scientific community. The origin of the Big Bang is arguably the greatest scientific mystery of all time, and it remains an area of considerable research.
  2. How did life start on Earth? There are two fundamental theories regarding the origin of life on Earth. The first theory, panspermia, holds that life exists throughout the Universe and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. This theory is compelling, but it still leaves us with another profound question, “How did life originate in the Universe?” There are no widely accepted theories to address that question. The second theory, regarding how life started on Earth, is termed biopoesis. It holds that life forms from inorganic matter through natural processes. This theory is also compelling, but no experimental process has resulted in life forming from inorganic matter. By simple logic, one or even both of these theories is correct. Obviously, in the early Universe, life had to form from inorganic matter. It is also possible that life also started on Earth via the same process. It is also possible that once life formed in the Universe, it was spread by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.
  3. What is the nature of time? Some scientists, myself included, argue time is real. This stance suggests that time travel would also be possible. In my book, How to Time Travel, I devote considerable attention to the various philosophies of time and to experiments that suggest time is real. I also delineate experiments that prove time travel to the future is real, as well as experiments that prove reverse causality is real (i.e., literally, the effect precedes the cause). I also delineate experiments that prove that something in the future can alter the past. Some philosophers and scientists argue that time is a mental construct. It is not real. That humans invented time to measure change. If that is true, time travel would not be possible, except in your mind. However, scientific experiments, such as time dilation and reverse causality suggest otherwise. What do you think?
  4. What is the fundamental theory of physics? Modern physics rests on two pillars, The first pillar is Einstein’s theories of relativity. The second pillar is quantum mechanics. Although Einstein’s theories explain phenomena on the macro-scale (i.e., the typical scale we observe in our every day life), it fails to explain phenomena on the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). To explain phenomena on the quantum level we must turn to quantum mechanics. This would be acceptable, except Einstein’s theories of relativity are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They do not come together to adequately explain gravity. Physicists have long sought the “theory of everything.” Some physicists, like world renown cosmologist Stephen Hawking, suggest that M-theory (i.e., the most comprehensive string theory) fits the bill. However, there is no consensus or proof that M-theory is even valid. Until the next Einstein comes along and solves the problem, we don’t have a fundamental theory (i.e., a single unifying theory) of physics.
  5. Does life exist on other planets or is the Earth unique? Almost every scientist agrees that given the vastness of the Universe and the numerous Earth-like planets that have been discovered, there must be life somewhere else in the Universe. Indeed, many believe, myself included, that advanced aliens, similar or more advanced than ourselves, must also exist. However, there has been no definitive publication that proves life exists elsewhere in the Universe. I will refrain from getting into UFOs, government conspiracies and similar material. I don’t refute such theories, but as a scientist I must base my conclusions on definitive evidence. To date, we have no definitive evidence (i.e., widely accepted by the scientific community) regarding life on other planets. However, mathematically, I think life on other planets is a certainty. What do you think?
Aerial view of a desert observatory complex with large telescopes mounted on platforms, set against mountainous terrain.

Where Is All the Lithium?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

According to standard cosmology theory, Lithium, together with hydrogen and helium, is one of three elements to have been synthesized in the Big Bang. Therefore, we should see a uniform abundance of Lithium throughout the universe. However, we don’t. By experimental observation, the older stars seem to have less Lithium than they should (by a factor of 2 or 3), and some younger stars have far more. This discrepancy regarding the uniform abundance of Lithium and experimental analysis of older stars is one of the most distressing discrepancies with the Big Bang theory. In science, one significant discrepancy can dispute a theory. Therefore, this raised serious questions regarding the validity of the Big Bang theory and cast doubt on the accuracy of the experimental measurements.

In 2006, astronomers Andreas Korn of Uppsala University in Sweden and colleagues in Denmark, France and Russia made an important discovery regarding the Lithium cosmic discrepancy. Using a spectrometer on the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile, Korn and co-workers studied 18 stars in a distant globular cluster called NGC 6397, which formed roughly a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Using their experimental data along with theoretical models of how nuclei behave in the atmospheres of stars, they put forward a new model. They hypothesized that the lithium diffuses into the interiors of stars over time, where it is burnt up at temperatures of over 2.5 million Kelvin. Their model suggested that these stars originally contained 78% more lithium than we observe today. In other words, the predicted initial amount of Lithium agrees with predictions from the Big Bang theory.

Even after Korn’s (and colleagues) discovery in 2006, some cosmologists continued to entertained a competing theory, namely that axions, hypothetical subatomic particles, may have absorbed protons and reduced the amount of Lithium created in the period just after the Big Bang. The axion particle was postulated by the Peccei–Quinn theory in 1977 to resolve the “strong CP problem” (CP standing for charge parity). In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of strong interactions, predicted there could be a violation of CP symmetry in the strong interactions (the mechanism responsible for the strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus of the atom together). However, there is no experimentally known violation of the CP-symmetry in strong interactions. In effect, cosmologists forwarding the axion theory to explain the cosmological Lithium discrepancy are attempting to explain one mystery (i.e., the cosmological Lithium discrepancy) with another mystery (hypothetical axions). Although, the strong CP problem continues to remain one of the most important unsolved problems in physics, axions appear to be a far less plausible solution to the cosmological Lithium discrepancy. If we apply Occam’s razor (i.e., the simplest of competing theories is preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities), Korn’s (and colleagues) model triumphs.

If we accept Korn’s (and colleagues) model, one of the great cosmological mysteries is resolved and questions regarding the Big Bang model  and the experimental measurements are resolved. However, in science old paradigms seem to only die when the scientists holding them die. In my judgement, Korn and his colleagues have resolved the missing Lithium question and are potential candidates for the Nobel Prize.

Image: The Very Large Telescope is a telescope operated by the European Southern Observatory on Cerro Paranal in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile

Abstract cosmic scene with transparent spheres floating against a colorful galaxy backdrop.

Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Universe Mysteries, , ,

The universe we can see and measure is about 13.8 billion years old. However, the universe is larger than 13.8 billion light years in diameter due to the expansion and subsequent inflation of space, in accordance with the Big Bang theory. In fact, our best current estimate, taking expansion and inflation of space into account, puts the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away from Earth. This “edge” would represent our current cosmological horizon.

If you assume that the universe is infinite, then logically it would extend beyond the current cosmological horizon. Scientists have termed this infinite universe a “super-universe.” If the infinite universe theory is correct, our universe may be one universe out of uncountable billions in the super-universe. We cannot see the other universes because our current observation technology is unable to look through the cosmic microwave-background radiation, which originated when the matter in the universe was plasma (hot, ionized gas), and thus opaque. In theory, if we develop more advanced observation technology, such as a neutrino telescope (one capable of detecting neutrinos) or even a gravitational telescope (one capable of detecting the yet-undiscovered gravitation particle called a “graviton”), we would be able to look beyond the cosmic microwave-background radiation and see older events. We would have a new cosmological horizon, but we would never be able to examine the “edge” of an infinite universe. Why? It has no edge—and advances in cosmic observation technology will not matter. Even the hypothetical graviton (the theoretical particle of gravity), traveling at the speed of light, would never reach us from an infinitely distant universe.

Why is an infinite universe even plausible? We know from actual observations that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. The farther out our instruments allow us to observe, we can measure that the expansion is accelerating, and even exceeding the speed of light. The accelerating expansion is termed “inflation,” and was confirmed in the late 1990s. Until inflation’s confirmation, scientists believed that gravity would eventually slow the universe’s expansion, and even eventually cause the universe to contract in a “Big Crunch,” since gravity causes everything to pull on everything.

Long before we had any observable proof of the universe’s inflationary expansion, two scientists independently postulated its existence in 1979. Unfortunately, one scientist, Alexei Starobinsky of the L.D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, was unable to communicate his work to the worldwide scientific community due to the political policies of the former Soviet Union. Fortunately, the other scientist, Alan Guth, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed an inflationary model independently, and communicated it worldwide. Guth’s model, however, was not able to reconcile itself with the isotropic, homogeneous universe we observe today. In other words, to the best of our current ability to measure it, the universe essentially looks the same in every direction. Andrei Linde, Russian-American theoretical physicist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University, solved Guth’s theoretical dilemma in 1986. Linde published an alternative model entitled “Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe” (known as “Chaotic Inflation theory”). In Linde’s model, our universe is one of countless others. A prediction of the chaotic inflation theory is an infinite universe with bubble universes within it. Would they be the same as our universe? No one knows. Perhaps one or more universes would be different from ours. However, being infinite, an infinite number of universes would be identical to ours, even down to the last atom, obeying the same physical laws.

The concept of an infinite universe would also imply an infinite number of us (you, me, and everyone else) are out there somewhere beyond the cosmic horizon. Given an infinite number of us, we are living out every possible scenario. This is difficult to comprehend because infinite numbers cannot be comprehended. Here is a simple way to think about this. If you play poker, what are the odds that you will be dealt a royal flush (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, all in the same suit) in the first five cards? They are 2,598,960 to 1. That means you will get a royal flush about once every 2,598,960 hands of five-card poker (known as five-card stud poker). Even if you play every day, and for numerous hours a day, you may never get one. However, if you have forever, and continue playing, eventually you will get one, then another, and with infinite time, an uncountable number (an infinite number). Using this example, if there are an infinite number of us in the universe, then each of us in some part of the universe will experience a possible scenario. Since there are an infinite number of us, as a group we will experience every conceivable scenario. For example, in one of these possible scenarios, you would be the President of the United States.

I recognize the implications of an infinite universe are difficult to comprehend. A natural question to ask is, is it possible? The fact is, it’s theoretically possible, but there is no conclusive physical evidence. Recently, it’s been suggested that irregularities observed in the cosmic microwave background may be evidence of another universe bumping into ours. However, there is no scientific consensus regarding that hypothesis, so I am going to leave that discussion for a future post. Currently, it is scientifically valid to assert we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite.

A vibrant cosmic explosion with bright orange and red hues surrounded by a dark purple and blue starry background.

Why Is There Almost No Antimatter In the Universe?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

One of the great mysteries of our universe, and a weakness of the Big Bang theory, is that matter, not antimatter, totally makes up our universe. According to the Big Bang theory, there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. (Note: The Big Bang theory asserts that the universe originated from a highly dense energy state that expanded to form all that we observe as reality.)

If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our galaxy, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. It is natural to ask the question: where is the missing antimatter? (Recall, that antimatter is the mirror image of matter. For example, if we consider an electron matter, the positron is antimatter. The positron has the same mass and structure as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron has a negative charge, and the positron has a positive charge. Antimatter bears no relationship to dark matter. (Dark matter is discussed in the next chapter.)

Several theories float within the scientific community to resolve the missing antimatter issue. The currently favored theories (baryogenesis theories) employ sub-disciplines of physics and statistics to describe possible mechanisms. The baryogenesis theories start out with the same premise, namely the early universe had both baryons (an elementary particle made up of three quarks) and antibaryons (the mirror image of the baryons). At this point, the universe underwent baryogenesis. Baryogenesis is a generic term for theoretical physical processes that produce an asymmetry (inequality) between matter and antimatter. The asymmetry, per the baryogenesis theories, resulted in significant amounts of residual matter, as opposed to antimatter. The major differences between the various baryogenesis theories are in the details of the interactions between elementary particles. Baryogenesis essentially boils down to the creation of more matter than antimatter. In other words, it requires the physical laws of the universe to become asymmetrical. We need to understand what this means.

The symmetry of physical laws is widely accepted by the scientific community. What does “symmetry” mean in this context?

  • First, it means that the physical laws do not change with time. If a physical law is valid today, it continues to be valid tomorrow, and any time in the future. This is a way of saying that a time translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Second, it means that the physical laws do not change with distance. If the physical law is valid on one side of the room, it is valid on the other side of the room. Therefore, any space translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Lastly, it means that the physical laws do not change with rotation. For example, the gravitational attraction between two masses does not change when the masses rotate in space, as long as the distance between them remains fixed. Therefore, any rotational translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.

This is what we mean by the symmetry of physical laws.

Next, we will address the asymmetry of physical laws. In this context, “asymmetry” means that the symmetry of physical laws no longer applies. For example, a law of physics may be valid in a specific location, but not in another, when both locations are equivalent. Is this possible? Maybe. There has been experimental evidence that the asymmetry is possible (a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws). For example, radioactive decay and high-energy particle accelerators have provided evidence that asymmetry is possible. However, the evidence is far from conclusive. Most importantly, it does not fully explain the magnitude of the resulting matter of the universe.

This casts serious doubt on the baryogenesis theories. In addition, the baryogenesis theories appear biased by our knowledge of the outcome. By making certain (questionable) assumptions, and using various scientific disciplines, they result in the answer we already know to be true. The universe consists of matter, not antimatter. Therefore, baryogenesis theories may not be an objective explanation. However, apart from the Big Bang Duality theory, it is science’s best theory of the missing antimatter dilemma.

The Big Bang Duality theory, described in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries and also summarized below, provides a simpler explanation, which does not violate the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. From this viewpoint, it deserves consideration.

In essence, the Big Bang Duality theory hypothesizes that the Big Bang was the result of a collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (i.e. A super-universe capable of holding countless universes. In theory, it contains our own universe, as well as other universes.).
 
This theory rests on the significant experimental evidence that when virtual particles emerge from “nothing,” they are typically created in matter-antimatter pairs. Based on this evidence, I argued in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, the Big Bang was a result of a duality, not a singularity as is often assumed in the Big Bang model. The duality would suggest two infinitely dense energy particles pop into existence in the Bulk. These are infinitely energy-dense “virtual particles.” One particle would be matter, the other antimatter. The collision between the two particles results in the Big Bang.
 
What does this imply? It implies that the Big Bang was the result of a matter-antimatter collision. What do we know about those types of collisions from our experiments in the laboratory? Generally, when matter and antimatter collide in the laboratory, we get “annihilation.” However, the laws of physics require the conservation of energy. Therefore, we end up with something, rather than nothing. The something can be photons, matter, or antimatter.
 
You may be tempted to consider the Big Bang Duality theory a slightly different flavor baryogenesis theory. However, the significant difference rests on the reactants, those substances undergoing the physical reaction, when the infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles collide. The Big Bang Duality postulates the reactants are two particles (one infinitely energy-dense matter particle and one infinitely energy-dense antimatter particle). When the two particles collide, the laboratory evidence suggests the products that result are matter, photons, and antimatter. Contrary to popular belief, we do not get annihilation (nothing), when they collide. This would violate the conservation of energy. Consider this result. Two of the three outcomes, involving the collision of matter with antimatter, favor our current universe, namely photons and matter. This suggests that the collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter pairs statistically favor resulting in a universe filled with matter and photons. In other words, the universe we have. While not conclusive, it is consistent with the Big Bang being a duality. It is consistent with the reality of our current universe, and addresses the issue: where is the missing antimatter? The answer: The infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter pair collides. The products of the collision favor matter and energy. Any resulting antimatter would immediately interact with the matter and energy. This reaction would continue until all that remains is matter and photons. In fact, a prediction of the Big Bang Duality theory would be the absence of observable antimatter in the universe. As you visualize this, consider that the infinitely energy-dense matter and antimatter particles are infinitesimally small, even to the point of potentially being dimensionless. Therefore, the collision of the two particles results in every quanta of energy in each particle contacting simultaneously.
 
You may be inclined to believe a similar process could occur from a Big Bang singularity that produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The problem with this theory is that the initial inflation of the energy (matter and antimatter) would quickly separate matter and antimatter. While collisions and annihilations would occur, we should still see regions of antimatter in the universe due to the initial inflation and subsequent separation. If there were such regions, we would see radiation resulting from the annihilations of antimatter with matter. We do not see any evidence of radiation in the universe that would suggest regions of antimatter. Therefore, the scientific community has high confidence that the universe consists of matter, and antimatter is absent.
 
I have sidestepped the conventional baryogenesis statistical analysis used to explain the absence of antimatter, which is held by most of the scientific community. However, the current statistical treatments require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. Essentially, they argue the initial expansion of the infinitely dense energy point (singularity) produces more matter than antimatter, hence the asymmetry. This appears to complicate the interpretation, and violate Occam’s razor. The Big Bang Duality theory preserves the conservation of energy law, and does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.
 
Let me propose a sanity check. How comfortable is your mind (judgment) in assuming a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws? I suspect many of my readers and numerous scientists may feel uncomfortable about this assumption. The most successful theory in modern physics is Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which requires the laws of physics to be invariant in any inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference at rest or moving at a constant velocity). If you start with the Big Bang Duality theory, it removes this counterintuitive assumption. This results in a more straightforward, intellectually satisfying, approach, consistent with all known physical laws. Therefore, this theory also fits Occam’s razor (i.e., A principle of science that holds the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available.).