Saturday, October 28, 2017

Groping for a Break in Universal Symmetry

Put as simply as I can muster, the universe consists of particles, not anti-particles. But if both particles and anti-particles are created simultaneously and equally, then at the Big Bang (now a dubious event) the particles and anti-particles would have cancelled each other and the result would be zero: neither particles nor anti-particles would exist. The equality of the two types is called “symmetry”. Without particles, there would be no universe, no atoms, no you, no me.

But the result was not zero particles; the result was an overwhelmingly vast number of actual particles, and a missing vast number of anti-particles. So the symmetry expectation was somehow “broken” at the initial stages of the existence of the universe.

Symmetry of particle-antiparticle existence is a principle of sub-atomic physics, a feature which is highly regarded. In fact, according to physics, no existence should exist, given the principle of symmetry. Yet the existence of the universe, including you and me, demonstrates that particle/anti-particle symmetry could not have existed when the universe came into being.

In order to explain how it is that we exist, physicists must explain one of two things. Either the concept of total symmetry between particles and anti-particles is wrong, or how it is that we don’t really exist (except maybe as holograms).
"In the end, however, they could not find any difference between the two. This consistency is a confirmation of the CPT symmetry, which states that the universe is composed of a fundamental symmetry between particles and antiparticles. "All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," explained Christian Smorra, first author of the study. "An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"
Thus the particles and their anti-particles are being scrutinized for differences in their constitutions which might allow for particle plus anti-particle not to actually equal zero. In other words, to prove that the concept of total symmetry is not actually the case, even at the particle level.

Testing on most particle/anti-particle characteristics has been a focus of subatomic physics. All characteristics which were tested showed symmetry. The recent testing of the particle/anti-particle magnetic fields was done in order to determine if that specific characteristic might not be equal and opposite for both types.

But the testing found otherwise, that the magnetic fields were essentially equal, and that the anti-particle actually tested slightly higher in the less reliable limit (ninth decimal place). But since the universe is made of particles, not anti-particles, the eighth decimal place equality is accepted as “symmetry” between particles and anti-particles, at least in magnetic fields.

So the concept that the universe actually exists is still endangered by the principle of symmetry.

There is one more test to be done: gravity. Does gravity perform equally and oppositely on the particle/anti-particle pair, thereby preserving the concept of total symmetry? Do anti-particles “fall up”?

And if so do we, as far as physics is concerned, not exist?

There is another issue embedded within this conundrum. Why do we assume that the Big Bang even occurred, if we must create an unobservable and physically impossible “expansionary” time zone in order to make it appear so? Should we accept that? Or should we ask if something else occurred outside the limitations of physics, and outside the knowledge zone of physicists?

No, we can’t ask that. That question is disallowed because physicists can’t answer it. If they can’t answer a question due to the nature of the question, then the question is considered “uninteresting”, “phantasmagorical”, “uneducated”, and “rude”. Not to mention “non-material/immaterial/supernatural” and therefore “religious nonsense”.

But we’ll ask it anyway. And not just to bug the physicist-Materialist-Atheists. It’s a valid question. Even if physicists can never ever prove that either it is or it’s not. Physics and Cosmology have moved beyond the Bacon-Locke-Feynman “prove it experimentally, and reprove it experimentally” physics, and now accept story-telling so long as the story solves a problem which is insoluble by either observation or experimental replication.

Given that, I can easily prove that you don’t exist. At least not materially. Sorry; too bad for you. But stay loose, maybe your symmetry is just broken. I know mine is.

1 comment:

Steven Satak said...

I have no idea why I should care about this in the least.

I have no idea why grown men and women get paid absurd amounts of money to argue about this and build multi-billion dollar research machines for it.

I understand curiousity. But what are the practical applications? I mean, for the guys who have to pay for it? I understand the guys building it and the guys using it are already covered by my grants and tax dollars.

But when I go on a job search down at the shipyard, when I go up on the roof to crawl around cleaning the gutters, I seriously wonder. I could use some of that money myself for a new roof. It's hum-drum, but it's real life.