← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16773316

142 posts 10 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16773316 [Report] >>16773320 >>16773340 >>16773372 >>16774048 >>16774190 >>16774233 >>16774339 >>16774895 >>16778906 >>16778995 >>16779248 >>16786690 >>16786693 >>16789392 >>16789691
if the big bang made equal parts matter and anti-matter, where did all the anti-matter go?
Anonymous No.16773320 [Report] >>16773333 >>16779080 >>16780149
>>16773316 (OP)
Into the past
The universe is time-symmetrical. Before the big bang there was an anti-universe made out of antimatter when time and entropy flowed backward. Our universe is the mirror-copy of the anti-universe, and everything that is happening now has (un-)happened before
Anonymous No.16773333 [Report] >>16774049 >>16774998 >>16789891
>>16773320
sounds like bullpoop considering we can create and observe anti-matter without it teleporting backwards in time
Anonymous No.16773340 [Report] >>16773359 >>16773677 >>16774221 >>16774222 >>16779025 >>16789895
>>16773316 (OP)
ackshually it didn't make equal parts matter & antimatter - this is well established and well understood via CP violations
Anonymous No.16773359 [Report] >>16773368 >>16778963 >>16779977
>>16773340
>well established and well understood
It's hypothesized, far from as concretely decided as you make it sound
Anonymous No.16773368 [Report]
>>16773359
It's hypothesized there are unequal matter and antimatter? Great, so OPs question is already answered.
Anonymous No.16773372 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
The universe rotates or something idk
Anonymous No.16773677 [Report] >>16774171 >>16779977
>>16773340
>CP violations
Anonymous No.16774048 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
i ate it up
Anonymous No.16774049 [Report] >>16774099
>>16773333
well, yeah, and in said antimatter universe the antimatter people can create antiantimatter(so regular mater) without it teleporting antibackwards(so our forwards) in time
Anonymous No.16774099 [Report] >>16779520
>>16774049
why did it go backwards during the big bang, but forwards after things calmed down?
Anonymous No.16774171 [Report] >>16785772 >>16789135
>>16773677
Lmao that’s how abstract reasoning works
Anonymous No.16774190 [Report] >>16774875
>>16773316 (OP)
Same place the matter went.
Any other response assumes shit we can't fucking know.
Better question might be "what about the strange matter," but we're not allowed to talk about that or something.
>not noticing that things that annihilate violently don't much like sitting next to each other
I'm thinkin' "hmmm."
Anonymous No.16774221 [Report] >>16774256 >>16785806
>>16773340
Then what happened to the extra stuff if it all doesn't have to be conserved?
Anonymous No.16774222 [Report]
>>16773340
>CP violations
m-mods?
Anonymous No.16774233 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
it turned into dark matter
Anonymous No.16774256 [Report] >>16774266
>>16774221
What? It formed the universe dummy.
Anonymous No.16774266 [Report] >>16774269
>>16774256
No, matter is the universe, but if it isn't balanced out by an equal amount of counter spinning anti-matter, then where are the extra parts or where did they come from?
Anonymous No.16774269 [Report] >>16774285
>>16774266
Same place the matter came from.
Anonymous No.16774285 [Report] >>16774287
>>16774269
No, matter comes by splitting from anti-matter in the process of pair production, so what about the unpaired extra.
Anonymous No.16774287 [Report] >>16774303 >>16778638
>>16774285
>matter comes by splitting from anti-matter in the process of pair production
No. We're talking about the big bang, not QFT.
Anonymous No.16774303 [Report] >>16774307
>>16774287
No, we are talking about matter and antimatter which need to paired to exist.
Anonymous No.16774307 [Report] >>16774311
>>16774303
Wrong.
Anonymous No.16774311 [Report] >>16774344
>>16774307
Incorrect.
OP specifically said to just assume the conditions of the big bang (not to talk about it), but actually discuss and talk about the implications of matter and antimatter.
Anonymous No.16774339 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
I ate it
Anonymous No.16774344 [Report] >>16776300 >>16778638 >>16786724
>>16774311
>Assume falsehood
>Babble
Anonymous No.16774875 [Report] >>16774892
>>16774190
>>not noticing that things that annihilate violently don't much like sitting next to each other
why do they seem to readily react with each other in the particle accelerators? i don't think the experiments apply additional energy onto the particle pairs to make them go back together
Anonymous No.16774892 [Report] >>16774972
>>16774875
Not him, but it is a severe category error to say particle accelerators and the origin of the universe work in the same ways. Theoreticians just make that assertion because they wouldn't have jobs otherwise.
Anonymous No.16774895 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
Backwards in time... though from our perspective it all came together in a big crunch to cause the big bang.
Anonymous No.16774972 [Report]
>>16774892
anon said that dark matter is anti-matter which seems to be repelling matter. that is a current observation and i am just saying that it doesn't make sense when we put anti-matter together with matter inside a lab
Anonymous No.16774998 [Report]
>>16773333
>we
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Anonymous No.16776300 [Report] >>16778730
>>16774344
>falsehood
lol retard
Anonymous No.16778638 [Report] >>16778730
>>16774344
If the big bang is a falsehood, why would >>16774287 be any more relevant of a discussion?
Anonymous No.16778730 [Report] >>16778738 >>16778744 >>16784221
>>16778638
The notion that matter and antimatter occur in equal amounts is a consequence of the MODEL of QFT. The MODEL of the big bang is something else entirely. Asserting that a consequence of one model is a necessary ingredient of a different model is both scientifically ignorance and intellectually retarded.
>>16776300
Nou
Anonymous No.16778738 [Report] >>16778740
>>16778730
>The notion that matter and antimatter occur in equal amounts is a consequence of the MODEL of QFT.
Not in OP's hypothetical which big bang and qft are obviously both correct.
>if the big bang made equal parts matter and anti-matter
Anonymous No.16778740 [Report] >>16778742 >>16778762 >>16786724
>>16778738
>Assume falsehood
>Babble
Anonymous No.16778742 [Report] >>16778744
>>16778740
So which one is wrong?
Do transistors work on little big bang rather than quantum effects?
Anonymous No.16778744 [Report] >>16778747
>>16778742
Idk what else to tell you. If this didn't click for you then you're irredeemably retarded. >>16778730
Anonymous No.16778747 [Report] >>16778751
>>16778744
Do you just have zero reading comprehension? Tell me why the models are incompatible, which model is wrong and how, and how the correct model accounts for the other one and the matter/antimatter distribution.
Anonymous No.16778751 [Report] >>16778752
>>16778747
If you don't already know then no explanations will help you. This is common knowledge in the field and you're communicating that you're a complete outsider & novice who is ill equipped to have this discussion.
Anonymous No.16778752 [Report] >>16778909
>>16778751
I know that both big bang and qft are accepted by the general scientific community, so your demands that people have to choose between one or the other is pretty retarded and is evidence by the fact you can't explain yourself in the least and have to attempt to turn the tables when asked to justify yourself.
Anonymous No.16778762 [Report] >>16778907
>>16778740
What falsehood is being assumed and what is the correct assumption?
Anonymous No.16778906 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
was anything created by the big bang at all? i thought it was just a state of the universe that we can't figure out what came before it other than being dense and hot. matter could've maybe existed for trillions of years before it happened to rapidly expand, right?
Anonymous No.16778907 [Report] >>16778981
>>16778762
That model X predictions apply to model Y existence.
Anonymous No.16778909 [Report]
>>16778752
Neither model is universally applicable. This choice you've presented doesn't exist. It's about domains of applicability. QFT is inapplicable to the big bang model. The big bang model makes no predictions about matter-antimatter symmetry.
Anonymous No.16778963 [Report]
>>16773359
>bro its only a hypothesis
We can look around and see there is a lack of antimatter. We'd fucking see it otherwise. Just like we see regular matter. That there is a difference is indisputable. It's why scientists ask WHY there is a lack of antimatter and not whether there is or not. We can already see there isn't because matter, for whatever reason, dominates.
Anonymous No.16778981 [Report] >>16778998 >>16779036
>>16778907
>predictions
it is empirically proven that conversion of energy to mass creates a pair of matter and anti-matter
Anonymous No.16778995 [Report] >>16779002
>>16773316 (OP)
who says the big bang made equal amounts of matter and antimatter?
Anonymous No.16778998 [Report] >>16779000
>>16778981
>it is empirically proven that conversion of energy to mass
Who told you the history of the universe is some sort of energy to mass factory?
Anonymous No.16779000 [Report] >>16780191
>>16778998
>something exists
>yeah bro so prove energy became matter
You're looking directly at it. You yourself are made of it. I know this board isn't the smartest but what the fuck.
Anonymous No.16779002 [Report] >>16780191
>>16778995
e=mc^2
Anonymous No.16779025 [Report] >>16779977
>>16773340
Not true. The amount of CP violations isn't enough to explain the observed asymmetry. In other words they don't create enough matter.
Anonymous No.16779036 [Report] >>16779078
>>16778981
No, it is demonstrated that it COULD create matter antimatter, not that it DOES. And that's only pair production (QFT); it is NOT an empirically confirmed facet of the big bang model.
Anonymous No.16779078 [Report] >>16779943
>>16779036
what would be the difference? is there any other outcome when converting energy to mass? or do you think the big bang wasn't pure energy
Anonymous No.16779080 [Report]
>>16773320
Never thought of it like this but it makes sense
Anonymous No.16779248 [Report] >>16779356
>>16773316 (OP)
maybe it coalesced faster in something that we cannot easily detect? your question implies we have fully mapped the universe and found no trace of it. thus it can be obscured in some way but still be here. no reason to not have wildly different behavior to normal matter
Anonymous No.16779356 [Report]
>>16779248
we would find traces of it if we saw massive energy emissions from regular events like stars colliding into each other. instead of stars combining, they would be irradiating each other in a spectacular release of energy
Anonymous No.16779520 [Report]
>>16774099
think of it as initial velocity, any anti matter we create will carry the initial velocity we had fowards in time, while any matter they create will carry their velocity of moving backwards in time
Anonymous No.16779943 [Report] >>16780044
>>16779078
Energy is a second derivative, not primary, you need mass with respect to time and space with respect to time to get energy.
Anonymous No.16779977 [Report]
>>16773677
>>16773359
CP violations are experimentally observed such as in bottom quark decay.
>>16779025
True but the fact that it can be observed at all is a strong hint that it's probably the right direction and further theorizing and experimenting on CP violation is needed.
Anonymous No.16780044 [Report] >>16781027
>>16779943
was the big bang a release of pure matter?
Anonymous No.16780149 [Report]
>>16773320
But the universe, on a macroscopic level, is not time-symmetrical.
Anonymous No.16780191 [Report]
>>16779000
>yeah bro so prove energy became matter
How do you know matter wasnt spontaneously created already as matter? Why does it have to require some energy first, then matter transformation? You are talking about events from the early universe which you wont ever witness
>>16779002
>e=mc^2
This doesnt mean that all matter started as some kind of energy transforming into matter.
Anonymous No.16781027 [Report] >>16781030 >>16781231
>>16780044
No, it was a release of space along with equal parts matter and anti-matter to fill out the space and diffuse over time in the form of energy and expansion.
Anonymous No.16781030 [Report] >>16781034
>>16781027
what is your theory for where the anti matter went? energy has to come from from this burst of matter. if the energy didn't come from particle pairs annihilating, then did the anti matter somehow break apart without the regular matter breaking too?
Anonymous No.16781034 [Report] >>16781039
>>16781030
>what is your theory for where the anti matter went?
I just told you, its what is pulling space apart beyond observability from every direction and causing eternal expansion of space itself.
Anonymous No.16781039 [Report] >>16781250 >>16782061
>>16781034
>eternal expansion
do you think there will never be a big crunch?
Anonymous No.16781231 [Report]
>>16781027
>with equal parts matter and anti-matter
evidence? oh, right, the only evidence out there is the fact that they're not equal...
Anonymous No.16781250 [Report]
>>16781039
thermodynamics is fundamental except for this magical dark matter that can eternally act on its own, don't question it.
Anonymous No.16782061 [Report] >>16782068
>>16781039
What is the functional difference between heat death and big crunch when void based particle pair creation can spontaneously occur to such a high degree?
Anonymous No.16782068 [Report] >>16782072
>>16782061
i don't know, i am just interested in theories. if anti-matter is the dark matter that is expanding the universe, then there probably will never be a big crunch
Anonymous No.16782072 [Report] >>16782073
>>16782068
>there probably will never be a big crunch
There could be something indistinguishable from a big crunch, though.
Anonymous No.16782073 [Report] >>16782074 >>16782075
>>16782072
like that? a big crunch is interesting because all of the mass would combine together and be converted back into energy. it would be like a new big bang and the universe would restart. heat death is just infinity of nothing
Anonymous No.16782074 [Report]
>>16782073
like what*
Anonymous No.16782075 [Report] >>16782076
>>16782073
>heat death is just infinity of nothing
Ok, but when particle pair creation can occur in such a high degree among an infinity of nothing, it eventually results in another big bang cylce, just like big crunch except without the mass combining, but dissipating back into the infinity of nothing over time.
Anonymous No.16782076 [Report] >>16782086
>>16782075
is there a name for this theory so i can look into it?
Anonymous No.16782086 [Report] >>16782098
>>16782076
Eternal Inflation, Big Chill, bubble nucleation, metastable vacuum decay, there are a bunch of theories it could fall under.
Anonymous No.16782098 [Report] >>16782102
>>16782086
seems like this theoretically could happen at any time, even now
Anonymous No.16782102 [Report]
>>16782098
Yes in some distance void outside of the observable universe where there isn't a bunch of already existing mass to pop a new runaway bubble reaction, it could very likely be happening "right now".
Anonymous No.16784221 [Report]
>>16778730
dude, it's you who are arguing qft does not apply to the big bang. you should make a case for this instead of preaching from your virtual pulpit.
Anonymous No.16784235 [Report] >>16785715
Who told any of you retards that the big bang was some kind of energy to matter factory?
Maybe the matter was simply created as matter? What the fuck would you even know. As if you could do big bang experiments. Idiots
Anonymous No.16785715 [Report] >>16785809
>>16784235
>Who told any of you retards that the big bang was some kind of energy to matter factory?
Black science man, Pale Blue Stardust man and all the institutions they learned from and participated in.
Anonymous No.16785772 [Report] >>16789135
>>16774171
No, that's how fallacies work. Sure, abstract reasoning can lead to fallacies, but a fallacy is a symptom of incorrect reasoning.
Anonymous No.16785806 [Report]
>>16774221
>Then what happened to the extra stuff
Theres no evidence there was any "extra stuff". You dont know what the conditions at the big bang were.
The idea of the big bang is that of expansion, if you run the movie back you can imagine there was some kind of initial point that started. Theres zero reason to believe this initial point had more "stuff" in it than our current universe, since its supposed to be the same universe but compressed and hence a lot hotter.
And its just an extreme extrapolation. As far as anyone could tell, the universe "started" at half its current size, not at some tiny point. No one knows.
Anonymous No.16785809 [Report] >>16785811
>>16785715
No they did not. Just because matter has an energy equivalent doesnt mean all matter "started" as just energy.
Why is it that people are comfortable with the idea of energy magically spawning itself but not matter directly?
No one knows the conditions at the big bang
Anonymous No.16785811 [Report] >>16788949
>>16785809
>No one knows the conditions at the big bang
Black science man and Pale Blue Stardust man do, they each made an entire documentary about it.
Anonymous No.16785972 [Report] >>16786686
just read the thread.
it is my professional opinion, as anon the fifth of the /sci/ nebula: that the anon spazzing out at other anons who conflate the epistemological results of the big bang and qft; is correct.
this opinion costs the grand total of: $0.00 of your puny fiat currency.
Anonymous No.16786686 [Report] >>16786714
>>16785972
So which one isn't real, big bang or qft?
Anonymous No.16786690 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
into black holes
Anonymous No.16786693 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
Recycled into what physicists call the matter baby
Anonymous No.16786714 [Report] >>16786724 >>16788935
>>16786686
why do you keep insisting that both theories contradict each other?
qft shows that pair production is one way of producing matter and anti matter. It never makes the claim that this process is exclusive in forming matter and anti matter.
big bang never asserts that the matter produced at the big bang was produced through pair prodiction.
where's the contradiction? Why must one of them be false when they can coexist just fine?
You conflate "can" with exclusivity.
Anonymous No.16786724 [Report] >>16786781
>>16786714
>Why must one of them be false when they can coexist just fine?
see
>>16778740
>>16774344
Because the person I was talking to started by asserting that one of them was a falsehood and you are asking the same thing I was because it doesn't actually make sense to call either of them false.
Anonymous No.16786772 [Report]
What if the other stars and planets around them are made of antimatter? like you'd go to an alien world and get obliterated the moment you touch the atmosphere
Anonymous No.16786781 [Report] >>16786786
>>16786724
>Because the person I was talking to started by asserting that one of them was a falsehood
The falsehood is in you pretending to know the conditions at the big bang, which are unknown and if you simply extrapolate, they ought to be the same as in our current universe, but more compact and hotter.
Anonymous No.16786786 [Report] >>16786791 >>16786791 >>16788937
>>16786781
If they were unknown, we wouldn't have a big bang theory in the first place, the entire big bang theory is predicated on the fact that we can measure current conditions and backtrace them to the initial conditions and the initial conditions according to the theory were without mass until a few moments later, mass is not a conserved quality and was created after the initial conditions according to the theory.
Anonymous No.16786791 [Report] >>16786796 >>16786816
>>16786786
>If they were unknown,
They are unknown
>>16786786
>we wouldn't have a big bang theory in the first place,
That theory was invented the moment far away galaxies were observed having a redshit, the discovery of the CBR cemented this belief of a constant expansion, that, if you run the movie back, leads to a single point. But thats just an extrapolation.
>backtrace
You are simply extrapolating, not measuring these conditions, you cant measure them. And these extrapolations say the early universe was like ours but hotter and more compact, not some kind of pure energy soup that then became matter. Thats imagination on top of imagination
Anonymous No.16786796 [Report] >>16786802
>>16786791
>They are unknown
Not according to the big bang model according to that the current conditions have been traced back to the initial conditions which are massless.

>leads to a single point.
Yes a single 0d point which means by the theory, no mass existed and according to the theory, it didn't exist until the electroweak epoch.

>You are simply extrapolating, not measuring these conditions, you cant measure them.
Correct, the big bang theory is not a measurement.

>And these extrapolations say the early universe was like ours but hotter and more compact,
No the extrapolations say it was nothing like ours until after several epochs, the electroweak epoch being the one that conferred mass to the universe.

> not some kind of pure energy soup that then became matter.
Wrong, learn about the epochs, planck epoch, grand unification epoch, and rapid inflationary epoch were nothing like our universe and did not contain matter.
Anonymous No.16786802 [Report] >>16786804 >>16786812
>>16786796
>Not according to the big bang model a
The big bang model is not a person to know anything. Its just imagination.
You can see galaxies very far away and since you are kind of looking into the past you can measure that the expansion has been going in for billions of years. But beyond a point its all imaginary, and certainly the situation during the first few seconds is completely unknown.
Anonymous No.16786804 [Report] >>16786806
>>16786802
Ok, so you should have just said you think the big bang theory is the fake one in the first place if your argument is now that every extrapolations built into the model are just imaginary.
Anonymous No.16786806 [Report] >>16786807
>>16786804
Scientific theories require verification. The big bang can only be verified so far into the past, beyond a point its all imagination. Just because you call that imagination a theory and get romantically attached to it, doesnt mean it isnt.
BTW this "theory" of yours involves completely unknown physics of energy spontaneously spawning and particle physics at energy levels that have never been experimented on. But im sure you know better
Anonymous No.16786807 [Report] >>16786808 >>16788943
>>16786806
>The big bang can only be verified so far into the past,
No, according to you, only what you measure right now is real and you can't actually measure the past.

>Just because you call that imagination a theory and get romantically attached to it, doesnt mean it isnt.
I was just asking the guy which one was fake since he said one was fake and you clearly think the big bang model is fake since its description of the rise of mass is just imaginary, so you cleared up exactly why you think big bang and qft are incompatible because qft and pair production can be measured so it is real, but big bang's mass creation story can't be measured so it is fake.

>BTW this "theory" of yours
its not mine, I was asking the anon which thing he was implying was fake and you clearly believe the big bang narrative is fake and mass didn't actually get created during the electroweak epoch because you don't believe that epoch actually existed because the past can't be measured.
Anonymous No.16786808 [Report] >>16786812
>>16786807
>No, according to you, only what you measure right now i
What did i say? You can observe galaxies very far away and to look at them is to watch into the past. Retard.
Anonymous No.16786812 [Report] >>16786816 >>16786824
>>16786808
>What did i say?
You are simply extrapolating, not measuring these conditions, you cant measure them.

>You can observe galaxies very far away and to look at them is to watch into the past.
No, you can look at how you see galaxies now, you can't look into the past, so you can't actually say those are from the past, that is just an imaginary extrapolation according to you.
And you know this is what you were saying because you weren't so confident last time when you said
>>16786802
>you are kind of looking into the past
>kind of
Because you know you aren't actually looking into the past, you are just extrapolating which is fake imaginary stuff, not real measurement.
Anonymous No.16786816 [Report]
>>16786812
>You are simply extrapolating, not measuring these conditions, you cant measure them.
see
>>16786791
Anonymous No.16786820 [Report]
>literally 4 pepe OP threads in the front page
>all subzero IQ
>you retards keep posting and bumping them
I suggest fucking off to plebbit then kys
Anonymous No.16786824 [Report] >>16786828
>>16786812
>You are simply extrapolating,
A direct observation isnt an extrapolation niggerfaggot. KYS
Anonymous No.16786828 [Report]
>>16786824
You aren't directly observing the past, you are extrapolating that far away right now = past.
Anonymous No.16786845 [Report] >>16788897
you will pay for this, and the price will be the death of the board, don't say we didn't warn you
Anonymous No.16788897 [Report]
>>16786845
>we
ok schizo, concession accepted from you and all those demons in your head
Anonymous No.16788935 [Report]
>>16786714
>big bang never asserts that the matter produced at the big bang was produced through pair prodiction.
>where's the contradiction?
In assuming the big bang must have produced equal amounts matter and antimatter. Why assume that? Expert mode: no allusions to, even indirectly, principles of QFT.
Anonymous No.16788937 [Report] >>16788963
>>16786786
>they were unknown, we wouldn't have a big bang theory in the first place,
Retarded fucking pseud. The big bang model (lambda cdm) is not an origin model. It is an evolutionary model. All it asserts is that at some earlier time in the universe the matter and space was condensed. That's literally fucking it. The conditions are completely unknown
Anonymous No.16788943 [Report] >>16788964
>>16786807
>asking the guy which one was fake since he said one was fake
Nope. I didn't argue one was fake. I said they have different domains of applicability. The falsehood is applying them to the same domain where only one of them is applicable, or in your dumb fuck case neither is applicable. Perhaps an analogy will help you understand.
>Light behaves like a particle
>Light behaves like a wave
These are two models with different domains of applicability. The falsehood is saying
>Light is always simultaneously a wave and a particle
Then again, you're a fucking idiot so you probably genuinely believe that this falsehood is true. So I'll clarify that the wave particle duality assets that light is SOMETIMES a particle and SOMETIMES a wave depending on measurement criteria. It's not the case that either the particle or the wave model of light is false.
Anonymous No.16788949 [Report]
>>16785811
counting or not counting gang violence?
Anonymous No.16788963 [Report] >>16788996
>>16788937
>is that at some earlier time in the universe the matter and space was condensed.
No, matter was created in the electroweak epoch according to the model, it wasn't part of the initial conditions, it arose as a result of the initial conditions.
Anonymous No.16788964 [Report] >>16788997
>>16788943
>I didn't argue one was fake.

>The falsehood is applying them to the same domain where only one of them is applicable
No, both models attempt to explain how matter was created and how it gets destroyed, neither model conserves matter.

>These are two models with different domains of applicability.
No, they both apply to matter and attempt to explain its origins.
Anonymous No.16788996 [Report] >>16789590
>>16788963
>electroweak epoch
Lambda CDM model says absolutely nothing like this. This is a fabrication of your imagination.
Anonymous No.16788997 [Report] >>16789590
>>16788964
>matter was created
Lambda CDM model is not an origin model—it says absolutely nothing about how matter was created. It's a model of how the universe changes over time. It does not, and cannot say anything about the origin.
Anonymous No.16789135 [Report]
>>16774171
>>16785772
Notice how he didn't reply kek
Anonymous No.16789352 [Report]
QFT says its impossible to create matter from energy, except as in pairs of anti-matter and basically states that you cant create something like a neutron (despite having neutral charge) or any baryon.
The idea of some early universe of light creating baryonic matter violates QFT. But thats ok, because we have evidence for QFT and none for some kind of early pure-light universe
Anonymous No.16789392 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
"if"
Anonymous No.16789590 [Report] >>16789674
>>16788996
>>16788997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_epoch
Wrong, Big Bang theory says matter was created in the electroweak epoch, matter is not a conserved quality, it changes over time.
Anonymous No.16789674 [Report] >>16789694 >>16789697
>>16789590
That's has nothing to do with the lambda CDM model. You have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt you even know what the lambda CDM model is.
Anonymous No.16789691 [Report]
>>16773316 (OP)
A more pertinent question is where did the exotic stuff with negative pressure at insane energy densities go? Back up inflationists ass from whence it came, I'd venture
Anonymous No.16789694 [Report] >>16789706
>>16789674
Except it is related and all you had to do was ctrl+f to see its specifically mentioned by name on the page. Also OP didn't even say anything about Lambda-CDM specifically, he talked about the big bang including what happened in the first .1s so you are the one being off topic by trying to rhetorically move the goal posts to some more incomplete model.
Anonymous No.16789697 [Report] >>16789711
>>16789674
Also even the lambda-cdm model doesn't argue for the conservation of matter, so you still have to lean on qft to model pair production in the lamba-cdm model.
Anonymous No.16789706 [Report] >>16789710
>>16789694
>OP didn't even say anything about Lambda-CDM specifically, he talked about the big bang
Can't make this shit up lmfao
Anonymous No.16789710 [Report] >>16789712
>>16789706
What that you don't understand that lambda-cdm is basically just big bang theory minus everything that occurred in the first .1s, so it also doesn't conserve mass and depends on qft to explain matter creation?
Anonymous No.16789711 [Report]
>>16789697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics_in_cosmology
They're basically echoing this nonsense. It's so poorly argued that even morbidly obese retarded Wikipedia mods stepped in and flagged the entire article as bullshit with a disclaimer.
Anonymous No.16789712 [Report] >>16789747
>>16789710
Lambda CDM is the standard model of cosmology. It's to cosmology what the standard model of particle physics is to particle physics. Big bang model is simply the laymen term for lambda CDM. If you don't know this, then it's obvious you're not a physicist, so what the fuck are you doing in this thread?
Anonymous No.16789747 [Report] >>16789759
>>16789712
No, big bang has a bunch of epochs in the first .1 seconds to explain the rise of space, time, mass and other things while lambda does not, it just skips to .1s of the big bang model.
Anonymous No.16789759 [Report] >>16789768 >>16789797
>>16789747
Who told you that? I guarantee you it wasn't a cosmologist lol
Anonymous No.16789768 [Report] >>16789787
>>16789759
Then feel free to tell us all what your cosmologist expertise says the lambda-cdm claims about the first .1s of the big bang.
Anonymous No.16789787 [Report] >>16789791
>>16789768
nothing, lol
Anonymous No.16789791 [Report] >>16789792
>>16789787
Then feel free to tell us how your cosmological expertise says Lamba-CDM differs from big bang theory after the fist .1s.
Anonymous No.16789792 [Report] >>16789797
>>16789791
it doesn't. what part of this don't you understand?
Anonymous No.16789797 [Report] >>16789817
>>16789792
I don't understand how >>16789759
>you came to the conclusions its not just big bang model minus the first .1s if the only difference is the first .1s, of which lamda-cdm postulate don't apply.
Anonymous No.16789817 [Report]
>>16789797
Big bang = lambda-CDM, dumbass. This alleged difference you claim exist is a fabrication of your imagination, stoked by theoretical particle physicists who pretend their overextended models of specific domains of physics apply to other domains of physics. Just know: it's not your fault.
Anonymous No.16789823 [Report]
I can help with the confusion our pseud intellectual new friends have. The big bang model, aka the lambda-cdm model, aka the standard model of cosmology can only model the universe back to a couple hundred thousand years after the universe began, i.e., it's only valid back to the CMB. It cannot be applied to anything earlier. Particle physicists stepped in, said well if that's a high energy then our high energy physics must apply. Then a bunch of string theorists and similar minded quantum gravity grifters began asserting their grand unified theories and arbitrary planck units had physical meaning, and arbitrarily (without evidence) claimed these are the earliest x-seconds of the universe when cosmological models can only say what the universe looked like a couple hundred thousand years after the universe sprung into existence. At best, MAYBE you can extend (project/extrapolate) the model to a couple thousand years after the mathematical singularity but even that is stretching the model. If anyone says the universe was like blank on any scale shorter than thousands of years, they're lying. Full stop.
Anonymous No.16789891 [Report] >>16791349
>>16773333
>we can create and observe anti-matter
lmao what
Anonymous No.16789895 [Report] >>16791242
>>16773340
>CP violations
Jesus, just forget about the Epstein list already, it doesn't exist and if it did it would be democrat propaganda.
Anonymous No.16791242 [Report]
>>16789895
>Democrats want NSF funding to build better pp smashers for cp violations
Anonymous No.16791349 [Report]
>>16789891
>PET-CT scans are...LE FAKE