Universe's Existence May Be Explained by New Material

Universe's Existence May Be Explained by New Material

[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100803-science-space-universe-electrons-matter-antimatter-imbalance/]news.nationalgeographic.com[ /url]

About 13.7 billion years ago, the big bang created a big mess of matter that eventually gave rise to life, the universe, and everything. Now a new material may help scientists understand why.

The material was designed to detect a theorized but unproven property of electrons, subatomic particles with a negative charge that orbit the centers of atoms.

The new electron property may help explain the matter-antimatter imbalance. The theory is that electrons have what's called an electric dipole moment, which is similar to the separation between the positive and negative poles of a magnet.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The Big Bang?
Notice how National Geographic doesn't refer to it as the Big Bang Theory anymore... when did that happen?

"In the early stages of the universe, everything should have been symmetric,"

Current theories of particle physics state that the big bang should have created equal amounts of particles and antiparticles, which have identical masses and spins but with opposite charges and magnetic properties.

When these "mirrored" forms of matter interact, they cancel each other out in a process called annihilation, leaving behind only pure energy.

"This would mean that if we had exactly the same amounts [of matter and antimatter], then matter would not exist and we would not exist, because everything would annihilate,"

How come scientists always try to finance a big project to get information on why something is based on a theory?
Shouldn't they prove the theory first?

Maybe we didn't annihilate because the big bang theory is an incorrect theory?

Well perhaps this new material might find something else suitable though, not to say it won't find anything but one must wonder about the chronology.

I'm just wondering at the end of the day, it's fun to wonder with science

For instance, the team has recorded a very slight heating of the material as the electric field is switched on, which changes the magnetic properties of the material. Also, the presence of residual magnetic fields inside the lab can contaminate the results.

Scary stuff man!

But seriously how come the Big Bang is no longer a theory?

[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100803-science-space-universe-electrons-matter-antimatter-imbalance/]news.nationalgeographic.com[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


The Big Bang?
Notice how National Geographic doesn't refer to it as the Big Bang Theory anymore... when did that happen?



How come scientists always try to finance a big project to get information on why something is based on a theory?
Shouldn't they prove the theory first?

Maybe we didn't annihilate because the big bang theory is an incorrect theory?

Well perhaps this new material might find something else suitable though, not to say it won't find anything but one must wonder about the chronology.

I'm just wondering at the end of the day, it's fun to wonder with science

Scary stuff man!

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2010) — Scientists of the DZero collaboration at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have announced that they have found evidence for significant violation of matter-antimatter symmetry in the behavior of particles containing bottom quarks beyond what is expected in the current theory, the Standard Model of particle physics.The new result, submitted for publication in Physical Review D by the DZero collaboration, an international team of 500 physicists, indicates a one percent difference between the production of pairs of muons and pairs of antimuons in the decay of B mesons produced in high-energy collisions at Fermilab's Tevatron particle collider.

I thought it was already explained.

It is all just a bunch of nonsense. You are the universe. It is really simple. As long as anyone views the universe is an entity separate from themselves, rather then the universe as themselves, there will never be a conclusion of what "is".

You are what is. The universe is you.