How much Do you Like My Blogs

Monday, 6 February 2012

Where Went the Anti matter? -Our theory


 Authors_:
*Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya-Bsc(cal), Msc(JU), 7/51 Purbapalli, Sodepur, Dist 24 Parganas(north) Kol-110,West Bengal, India**Professor Pranab kumar Bhattacharya- MD(cal) FIC Path(Ind),Professor &HOD Pathology DCP and DLT Convenor incharge of WBUHS  Ex Prof &HOD pathology RIO Medical college KOlkata-73  & Ex Professor of Pathology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research,244 a AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-20, West Bengal, India*Mr.Ritwik Bhattacharya B.com(cal), **Miss Upasna Bhattacharya Student ,only daughter of Professor PKBhattacharya
*Somayak Bhattacharya BHM MSC student PUSHA New Delhi 7/51 Purbapalli, Sodepur, Dist 24 parganas(north) ,Kolkata-110,WestBengal, India* Rupsa Bhattacharya _student * Ritwik Bhattacharya B.Com(cal) *** Mrs. Dalia Mukherjee BA(hons) Cal, Swamiji Road, South Habra, 24 Parganas(north) West Bengal, India*** Miss Oaindrila Mukherjee-Student *** Mr Debasis Mukherjee BSC(cal) of Residence ,Swamiji Road, South Habra, 24 Parganas(north), West Bengal, India              
pranab's Avatar

Antimatter is now extremely rare in our observable universe, but at one time antimatter comprised half the Universe. According to cosmologists, when the Universe began in Palnk’s moment of Big bang it was smaller than an atom in size, hotter than our Sun is, and was perfectly in balanced form — like a 50-50 mixture of matter and antimatter. Then, just one second after the start of the big bang, the antimatter surprisingly disappeared. What happened to it all is still a big question before physicists? Not resolved.
 Some Scientists may have a pretty good idea of where the antimatter went: it annihilated almost all of the matter in the early Universe-they say. The bit that remained went on to form all the material stuff in the Universe today, including the atoms found in cells in your body. Among the most pressing questions that now need to be answered is why some of that primordial matter survived and made possible everything in the cosmos, including life itself.
This is probably one of the hardest topics to be answered on many of the agendas of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, near Geneva from the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] experiment, where smashing beams of protons flows to produce the highest energy collisions produced in 27 Km (16.9-mile length)tunnel of Earth- a giant circular tunnel, with several loops, stretches for 27km under the land between France and Switzerland. LHC is a device that demands to be described in superlatives — it’s the world’s biggest piece of scientific apparatus, using particle beams circulating in the world’s biggest fridge tunnel and has its results processed by the world’s most powerful super computer technology.
During every seconds of its operation, the LHC top scientists may find hundreds of subatomic particles smash-ups in space-time smaller than a pinhead. Every collision generates a spray of hundreds of particles and antiparticles, many of them will be monitored by huge detectors (the largest would only just fit inside Westminster Abbey). In this way, LHC scientists can  by some days  simulate the conditions in the Universe a billionth of a second after its birth, The BIG Bang, when antimatter was almost as common as matter. The upshot is that CERN scientists so will soon be able to study antimatter in detail, shedding light on its behavior and on its possible medical applications, such as the treatment of cancer if any. Scientists however had already detected anti-matter particles, known as geo-neutrinos, emitted during nuclear reactions  first time [2] into the deep interior of the Earth, to a depth of up to thousands of kilometers.  Geo-neutrinos, which have almost no mass and no electrical charge, are emitted when radioactive elements in the Earth’s mantle decay into more stable substances. The decay of elements such as uranium and thorium are thought to contribute more than 50 per cent of the heat generated inside the planet, but the exact fraction is unknown. Measuring the number of geo-neutrinos emitted, and their energies, could help determine the proportions of different radioactive substances in the Earth’s mantle and the amount of heat energy they contribute
The opening of existence of antiparticle was first time written in 1931 by the famous English physicist Paul Dirac, who first conceived it.
 His publication was purely a theoretical speculation and discussion so far known before us, based on his faith in his mathematically beautiful equation for the electron, widely known before world as the Dirac equation. There was then no experimental evidence that this new kind of subatomic particle actually existed.  After three years of poring over his equation, he further wrote that it made sense only if there existed another particle with exactly the same mass as the electron has, but however with the opposite electrical charge ,at least theoretically. No one had ever seen then such a particle but Paul Dirac was not surprised as his theory predicted that the instant a particle comes into contact with its antiparticle, the two must annihilate each other and produce a burst of high-energy light. He nonetheless named this product of his imagination the anti-electron and proposed that antiprotons — antiparticles of protons — should also exist. For Dirac’s colleagues, these ideas were much for fun and  laughing and not to be taken seriously in scientific community.
But later Paul Dirac was proved to be absolutely right. In August 1932, the American physicist and Mathematician Carl Anderson observed a particle with the same mass as the electron but with the opposite charge among the cosmic rays raining down on the skies of Pasadena in California. He was then unaware of Dirac’s prediction and it took several months for physicists to put two and two together to conclude that Anderson had been the first to detect the anti-electron, later dubbed the positron (the antiproton took another 23 years to find). From the modern perspective, it took human beings a million years after our species evolved to detect the first evidence of antimatter, which had been around in the Universe for 13.7 billion years. Paul Dirac was rewarded for his boldness in December 1933 with the honor of  becoming the youngest theoretician to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics co sharing with Anderson.
Soon it was clear that Dirac’s  concept was  much wider than he first thought — every fundamental particle of matter has a corresponding antiparticle. But antimatter presented a huge challenge for experimental proof. In order to study it in detail, it’s not good enough to study cosmic rays — for one thing,  that no one knows when they will arrive on Earth. Rather, experimenters have to resort to brute force: they smash together subatomic particles, such as protons, and siphon off any antiparticles produced. They then store them, ready for experimenters to study.
The Cern cathedral of science may reveal the universe's secrets, or suck us into a black hole
 Picture of LHC-http//www.independent.co.uk/news/science/theLHC-the-end-of-world-or-gods-own-particle-921540-html
This turns out be the Devil’s own job: the total mass of all the antimatter produced every year globally by all the particle accelerators is only about ten billionths of a gram. The amount sounds more impressive when put in terms of the number of antiparticles produced annually: roughly a hundred thousand billion. Not bad when you consider that in the year after Anderson detected the first anti-electron the number of them observed in the entire world was four[1].
Dirac’s image of every antiparticle as being in some sense the opposite of its corresponding particle survived until 1964, when two American experimenters demonstrated that, in some special circumstances, there is an extremely slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter. This provided the current explanation of why matter predominated in the early Universe — soon after the beginning of time, the decay of some of the formed particles led to a surfeit of matter over antimatter of one part more per billion. On that smidg in, the existence of everything in our Universe depended. It’s that fundamental: without that broken symmetry, neither you nor I nor anything else would exist[1]. In 1967, Andrei Sakharov (the Nobel prize winner for peace -1975) pointed  and explained that CP violation is the cause of such an asymmetry in the universe .In shakarov’s CP violation theory & spontaneous symmetry breaking theory, the quark becomes an anti-quark while the anti-quark becomes a quark[dancing Quarks], thus transforming the kaon[combination of a quark and an anti quark] into its anti kaon. In this way the kaon particle flips between itself and its anti-self. But if the right conditions are met, the symmetry between matter and antimatter will be broken. Nambu , Kobayashi and Maskawa’s (Nobel prize winner of 2008 in Physics) [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/phyadv08.pdf  
theory The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008 - Scientific Background] also indicated that it should be possible to study a major violation of symmetry in B-meson particles. It is known that neutral βs meson (β-anti quark &s anti quark) spontaneously transform into its antimatter particles. The current theory of particle physics states that βs meson oscillates very quickly. As a result of their oscillation an very difficult to detect what happens to antimatter. on the properties of subatomic particles βs meson(βsubs) suggest that particles oscillates between matter and antimatter in one of In the first few moments of the Universe, the anti-B-mesons might have decayed differently than their regular matter counterparts. By the time all the annihilations were complete, there was still enough matter left over to give us all the stars, planets and galaxies we see today. nature’s fastest rapid free process more than 17 trillion times per second.
 So how did our universe survived of matter is a big puzzle.
Yet theoreticians have a serious problem. They don’t understand the extent of symmetry-breaking between matter and antimatter particles and so cannot understand the amount of matter in the Universe[3]. The Standard Model, which gives an excellent account of all nature’s fundamental particles and forces (except gravity), accounts for some of the symmetry-breaking, but not all of it[3]. The Model, based on quantum theory and Einstein’s Special Theory, urgently needs a steer from nature so that theoreticians can do a better job of setting out the patterns in the Universe’s underlying fabric. It is the job of the experimenters to ask the right questions of nature, ones that yield the most telling information about the pattern
References
Part of the Alpha experiment in the AD (Antiproton Decelerator) Hall at CERN Times Online  6th may2010


2] Geo-neutrino anti-matter found by scientists at Borexino detector Times Online   march 15th 2010

3] Symmetry or Breaking the symmetry- what was the laws of nature- Thread’s author By Pranab  at BAD Astronomy &Universe Today on 29th oct 2008 at www.bautforum.com
4] Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe?-Our Theory Thread’s author By Pranab  at BAD Astronomy &Universe Today on 29th oct 2008 at www.bautforum.com

The Big Bang theory states that at some point, billions of years ago all the matter in the Universe occupied a space no larger than the following full stop. Why the subsequent series of events occurred is still not very clear, but in an explosive burst, this point, or 'singularity', expanded at an astonishing rate like a fireball at temperatures of billions of degrees, creating space time as it rapidly spread. Within the first second gravity and all the other forces were formed. Within minutes the Universe was billions upon billions of miles across and most of the matter that will ever exist was created. In these hot and dense conditions of the infant Universe, particles of light, or photons, were so tightly bound to protons, electrons and other subatomic particles that they couldn't travel anywhere. It took around 3,80,000 years for the Universe to expand and cool down to such an extent that the protons and electrons could combine to form the simplest chemical elements, hydrogen and helium, setting the photons free to create a sea of light that bathed the entire Universe . As the Universe continued to expand and cool down this light lost its energy, shifting its wavelength from high-energy gamma rays to the microwave range of the electromagnetic spectrum, at a temperature of just a few degrees above absolute zero. [1]
According to the standard model of big bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter must be created at the birth of the universe, but precious little antimatter is found in the universe today. Everything we see, from our bodies cell’s composition to our house, refrigerator, AC machine , cars Roads, trees, mountains, seas to the nearest/ distant nebulas, stars or planets in distant galaxies, is made of only matter(hadrons). Only Cosmic rays and high-energy physics labs routinely create antimatter particles,[ CERN managed to manufacture probably some 5,000 or more antimatter atoms] but they soon interacted with particles of matter and vanished in bursts of pure energy based on E=Mc2. Somehow, but within a fraction of a nanosecond after the big bang, matter gained the upper hand. But question is how did occur is still a mystery. The Conventional Theory as also stated by Gourdhead on his posting 5th April 2008 in the thread” at BAD Astronomy and Universe Today “ Why There's More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe” [Thread Starter was however Fraser]  where Gourdhead told it was the symmetry breaking[2] He told
“ When the quantum fluctuation occurred in an unspecified domain (perhaps indefinable and un specifiable in terms of today’s level of understanding since there was neither space nor time in which it could occur), an eruption of energy occurred in an unspecified state with all the currently identified forces inseparably bound in the grand unified force. Thus the energy that “decayed” into the various forms and states by which it is recognized today would have been in a somewhat different state (or states). It seems to be widely accepted that a foundational property of this “event” was the initiation of the evolution of space and time (or space time, if you prefer). As the aging of the spawn of this quantum fluctuation of some un specifiable medium in some un specifiable domain progressed, it appeared to have properties that generated limits on energy densities which were accommodated by rates of expansion of space over time and possessed the capability in a quantum-like manifestation that allowed the original energy to suffer symmetry breaking. Thus first the gravitational force separated from the GUF at T0 + 10^-43 seconds followed by the other forces at later times.
At the first breaking of symmetry, quark and electron classes of objects and their anti-matter counterparts were precipitated out of the “primordial” energy and were continually annihilating each other with the higher order particles prevented from forming by the intense temperature of the period. This environment rapidly became photonic in nature as the rate of expansion tended to seek equilibrium commensurate with the temperature and energy density allowed by the geometric properties of space. As space grew in size, thermodynamic cooling allowed matter to form in an ionic state. Having
posited that there was no space prior to the quantum fluctuation, it seems reasonable to assume that space was initiated at little, if any, more than a vanishingly small volume of no greater than (containable within) a Euclidean sphere of Planck radius. It seems reasonable to assume that the energy density within this sphere was at the maximum allowed by the intrinsic properties of this Euclidean space and was forced to expand by the large amount of energy being provided into this space by the progenitor quantum fluctuation. The time rate of increase of this volume and its energy content would have been controlled by and exerted control on the nature of this primordial time.
Sometime later (around T0 + 10^-35 ++ seconds) the expansion (inflation) had proceeded sufficiently to accommodate the energy density requirements imposed on the early universe such that the rate of expansion slowed to allow the radius of the universe to increase at less than light speed. A reasonable assumption is that, measured with today’s rulers, the radius of the universe was several light years in magnitude thus forever separating many parts of the universe from many others in terms of mutual information transfer. The quantum fluctuation that initiated this whole thing was of sufficient duration to continue adding mass by crinkling space in ways exactly appropriate to the particle being added
.[2]
In 1967, Soviet Nobel Prize Winner physicist Andrei Sakharov laid out the basic principles needed to understand this asymmetry and how it led to the dominance of matter in the universe. Sakharov showed that the violation of CP [charge-parity (CP) violation] symmetry is just one of three conditions that must be satisfied to explain how an imbalance arose between matter and antimatter. There must also be violation of a conservation law, called the "conservation of baryon number," and the early universe cannot always have been in thermal equilibrium. The prevailing theory of particle physics, called the Standard Model, readily accommodates the minute CP violation seen in the decay of kaons. But the violation of CP symmetry allowed by the Standard Model is too small to account for the amount of matter observed in the universe. One proposed modification of the Standard Model is super symmetry, a set of ideas that suggest nature should exhibit a new symmetry at extremely high energies. Super symmetry allows stronger CP violation than the Standard Model and also offers interesting ways to meet Sakharov's other two conditions for generating the asymmetry between matter and antimatter While the Standard Model provides only one parameter that violates CP symmetry, super symmetry predicts a whole new class of subatomic particles and new ways for CP violation to come about. If the theory is correct, the new particles predicted by super symmetry should be detected when powerful new accelerators begin operating in the next few years.
Let us now see what the Royal Swedish Academy for the Nobel prize in Physics-2008 tells us  about why matter is more then Antimatter and where went antimatter. The Problem had been awarded a series of Nobel prizes in physics  also - Links given bellow
 Next following discussions has been partially adopted and written from “Advanced Reports of 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics, Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2008 under the title “ Broken Symmetries” compiled by the Class Physicists of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stalk home, Sweden

 
“……………………….
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Particle Physics
………………….The really bold assumption that Yoichiro Nambu now made in 1960  was that spontaneous Symmetry breaking could also exist in a quantum field theory for elementary particles. In magnetism or in superconductivity, the “vacuum” was really a ground state, in the first case of atoms and in the second case of electrons and atoms. It is possible to give a vacuum expectation value for a physical quantity like a spin. In a particle theory, the vacuum is an abstract state and was assumed to be empty apart from quantum fluctuations. Professor Yoichiro Nambu introduced vacuum expectation values for certain fields. In fact, it was he who put forward a scheme for the theory of the strong interactions that mimicked  superconductivity in the following ways


Superconductivity Strong Interactions
free electrons hypothetical fermions with small mass phonon interaction unknown interaction energy gap observed mass of the nucleon collective excitations mesons, bound states charge chirality gauge invariance chiral invariance, possibly approximate . The chiral invariance corresponds to the axial current and Nambu first used this idea to address the PCAC problem in the paper mentioned above . By also assuming a small explicit breaking of the chiral invariance, he concluded that the pion had a small mass, much smaller than other scales in the problem, and he formulated PCAC and could then compute the so-called Goldberger-Treiman relation , which is a relation between the axial vector coupling GA, the decay constant of the pion and the coupling between two nucleons and a pion. Goldberger and Treiman had derived it from dispersion theory with some very brave assumptions. Here, it followed naturally from Yoichiro Nambu’s ideas. He followed up on his ideas in two papers with Giovanni Jona-Lasinio  and with other collaborators . Since there was no theory for the strong interactions, they discussed two possible cases. In the first, they use a theory with only fermions and in the other, they discussed a theory with intermediate vector particles. Nambu was well aware of Feynman’s functional formulation of quantum field theories and had in fact worked on it in Japan around 1950. He realized that the fermion model is only an effective theory with other physical fields integrated out, but that it will give similar results to a full theory like the second one. He came back to a complete theory a few years later as described below. Nambu and collaborators made model independent calculation and could test their ideas directly. In the case of “soft” pions (pions with small momentum transfer) they could compute cross sections for scattering between pions and nucleons that agreed with the experimental data.
 Yoichiro Nambu’s picture was very different from Yukawa’s. In the latter, the pion was found the intermediary between the nucleons. In Nambu’s picture, the pion was a bound state of constituent particles with small masses. This picture is four years before Gell-Mann’s  and George Zweig’s  introduction of quarks particles. The pion is also the sign of the chiral symmetry breaking. Nambu’s treatment of the BCS theory is non-relativistic since there is a Fermi surface. The particle physics case is treated relativistically expli. The pion was a composite particle and it is this composite that becomes near to mass less when there is no cit breaking of the symmetry. In 1961, Jeffrey Goldstone   performed a similar calculation with a scalar field, getting a vacuum expectation value, and showed that this also leads to a near mass less particle in the spectrum, and called as Nambu-Goldstone particles. In his treatment of the BCS theory, Nambu furthermore found that there is a state with energy and momentum zero, a  near to “mass less” phonon. When he took the Coulomb field into his account, these Phonon are transformed into very “massive” particle plasmons. Note that the chiral symmetry above is a global symmetry and when a global symmetry is spontaneously broken, a  close to mass less particle appears.
 [ PKB_ *N.B: Please Note, None considered Zero rest mass particle-but near zero What did that mean ?]
 In superconductivity, the symmetry was gauge symmetry and this leads to massive states. The same ideas were tried in 1964 for relativistic gauge theory by Robert Brout and François Englert  and also by Professor Peter Higgs . They found that a spontaneously broken gauge symmetry, as in the non-relativistic version of Nambu, does not produce a mass less particle. Instead, this mechanism gives the vector field a mass and a scalar state, the still today hypothetical Higgs particle, which is also a characteristic feature of such a theory. In 1965, Nambu, together with  M.-Y. Han , hypothesized that the underlying theory for the strong interactions should be a non-abelian gauge theory based on the gauge group SU(3). This was a year after Gell-Mann’s work on quarks and Han and Nambu chose to have quarks with integer electric charges. They now had also a new quantum number that was to be called colour. Their choice of electrical charges turned out finally to be  incorrect, but apart from that the idea was essentially correct. In 1971, Gerhard ‘t Hooft, together with Martinus Veltman [54] (Nobel Prize in physics- 1999), proved that non-abelian gauge theories are re-normalizable even if the gauge symmetry was spontaneously broken. This started the modern era of the Standard Model of particle physics. It then became clear that a non-abelian gauge theory with the gauge symmetry SU(2) . U(1) for the weak and electromagnetic interactions proposed by Steven Weinberg in 1967  and Abdus Salam in 1968, based on earlier work by Sheldon Glashow  could indeed be a viable model for Nature (Nobel Prize to the three, 1979). The scales in the model come via spontaneous symmetry breaking. In fact the electro-weak theory of Glashow, Salam and Weinberg has now been tested to very great accuracy at the LEP accelerator and all the data supports a spontaneously broken gauge theory . Nambu’s idea of spontaneous symmetry is one of the pillars of the model. In 1973, it was shown by David Gross and Frank Wilczek  and David Politzer  that a non-abelian gauge theory shows asymptotic freedom, i.e. the effective coupling constant goes to zero at large energies, contrary to the behavior in an abelian gauge theory like QED (Nobel Prize to the three 2004).David Gross and  Frank Wilzcek then proposed a non-abelian gauge theory like the one proposed by Han and Nambu, but with fractionally charged quarks, as the theory of the strong interactions. This came to be called Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD). (This model had also been proposed the year before by Harald Fritsch and Gell-Mann . The Standard Model for Particle Physics was then born based on the gauge symmetry SU(3) . SU(2) . U(1), with the symmetry spontaneously broken to SU(3) . U(1). This model had in the last thirty years been verified with exquisite precision, and it seemed clear that the Standard Model is the correct model for the energy scale at which we can measure today.
Even though QCD was the correct theory for the strong interactions, it cannot be used to compute at all energy and momentum scales. For many purposes, the originally idea of Nambu and Jona-Lasinio works better. Chiral Perturbation Theory is essentially their programme and is an effective theory constructed with a Hamiltonian consistent with the (approximate) breaking of the chiral symmetry of QCD . It allows us to study the low energy dynamics of QCD, a region where perturbative methods do not work for QCD. Since it is an effective theory in the way Nambu and Jona-Lasinio originally set up their programme, the degrees of freedom are not the quarks and the gluons but the experimentally detected hadrons. This model had been the standard tool to compute strong interaction processes at this energy range and had been of the utmost importance in recent years for interpreting data, both for processes involving mesons and for heavy ion collisions. Spontaneous symmetry breaking thus played an important role in many fields of science. A phase transition was often due to spontaneous breaking of a symmetry. This is a common phenomenon in condensed matter physics, in cosmology and also in chemistry and  in biology too. The Nambu- Goldstone particle  in this case is translated into a relation between the energy and the momentum, which says that for small momentum the energy tends to zero.
Quark Mixing
As mentioned above, there was also a problem with the universality of the vector coupling found in the decay of radioactive oxygen, 14O. A value of 0.97G had been measured for that process. Gell-Mann and Lévy discussed various explanations for it but put eventually forward the idea that it could be that the contributions of   to the hadronic current, where S is the strangeness, had different strengths. They discussed this in terms of the Sakata Model and wrote for the vector partand likewise for the axial part. This amounted to a unitary transformation of the n and Λ-states. With a value , they found a correct value for the coupling strength of the decay. This was an ingenious proposal based on only one experiment. Others had previously suggested that re-normalization effects could be at work, but Gell-Mann and Lévy wanted to keep the coupling universal and find other ways out. They believed that a re -normalizable theory must be behind, with a universal coupling constant.
The Sakata Model had been important and as long as currents bilinear in fields were discussed, it was useful. The model did treat mesons and baryons differently. In another ground-breaking step in 1961, Gell-Mann  kept the results for the currents and postulated that the particles should transform as representations of a (broken) SU(3). By using the lowest representation 3, .  is obtained. Gell-Mann now discards the Sakata particles and postulated that all mesons belong to the representation 8, “the eight-fold way”. Similarly, the lowest lying baryons belong to an 8. Yuval Ne’eman  also puts forward this proposal. All known hadrons were found to belong to representations of this group. The symmetry was broken, but in a controlled way, and Gell-Mann used it to propose missing particles that were subsequently found. He now left the idea of fundamental particles, at least for the time being. In an article  the year after, he continued this line and argued that the SU(3) symmetry is universal. The weak and the electromagnetic currents must transform as components of an octet. There is one octet of vector currents and one of axial vector currents. From these assumptions, he could derive a series of selection rules such as the absence of processes with . where S is strangeness and Q is the charge.
In 1959, the large particle accelerators at Brookhaven and CERN came into operation and a great deal of new experimental data was obtained. A much clearer picture of the weak decays of the hadrons was reached, and with these results, Nicola Cabibbo  in 1963 made a very important contribution. He took as his starting points three assumptions from Gell-Mann’s earlier work
The weak current Jh transforms as a component of an octet under SU(3).
The vector part is part of the same octet as the electromagnetic current.
The weak current is universal and of length 1.
The first two had been the essence of Gell-Mann’s paper from the year before and the third is the same as the proposal by Gell-Mann and Lévy. He introduces an angle instead of their parameter ε through




He can then use a general form for the hadronic current using SU(3) language.
This is written in Gell-Mann’s SU(3) language. The matrices V and A are Gell-Mann’s λ- matrices, which are eight 3 x 3 matrices representing the group. They are a generalization of Pauli’s σ-matrices. He used this current to compare the branching ratios of the kaon and the pion and found a value in agreement with the one found by Gell-Mann and Lévy. He then continued to compute branching ratios for strange baryons and found that the value of the angle θ seemed to be universal. The Cabibbo Theory with the Cabibbo angle θ quickly became a standard framework for the weak interactions. It turned out to be universal and an ever-increasing multitude of data could be fitted into it. It has been a cornerstone of weak interactions. In 1964, Gell-Mann  came back to the idea of fundamental constituents from which one could construct both the hadrons and the hadronic currents. He introduced three quarks, the u quark, the d-quark and the s-quark with the electric charges 2/3, -1/3 and -1/3. These transform as a triplet under SU(3). Their antiparticles transform as  . The mesons are built up by a quark-antiquark pair and the hadrons by three quarks. This idea was also put forward by George Zweig . Gell-Mann used a free quark model to extract the electromagnetic as well as the vector and axial vector currents in terms of the quark field and they then got the natural for

The hadronic current now looks again like that of Gell-Mann and Lévy. He used these currents to extract the commutation relations for the physical currents and this led to many results that led up to the Standard Model. Once it was discovered, these relations could be put on a firm ground.
Neutral Kaon and CP-Invariance
After having introduced the quantum number strangeness, Gell-Mann, together with Abraham Pais in 1955, pointed out that kaons must have unusual properties. (The discussion was in terms of θ. and τ-particles, but we use modern language here.) The kaons came as two iso doublets  ,  and their antiparticles ) ,  with strangeness +1 and -1. Under strong interactions, the two neutral particles are different, since this force respects strangeness, but under the weak force they can be mixed since this force does not respect strangeness. Gell-Mann and Pais found that it was more advantageous to use a mixture of these particles. Since it was believed that the charge conjugation was respected by all forces, eigenstates of the C operator should be used. They introduced the state
These are eigenstates with the eigenvalues +1 and -1 if the arbitrary phase in the C-operation is chosen as .
These two neutral states should then have different decay modes and hence different lifetimes. In the decay , the pions must have a relative angular momentum which is the same as the spin of the kaon, since the pions do not have any spin. A neutral pair of two pions is an eigenstate of C. Hence only one of the   can decay into two pions, namely  . The other neutral kaon  should then have a longer lifetime since the phase space to decay into three pions is smaller than the one for decay into two. This led to a series of detectable phenomena . A new naming of  was now accepted. This was very successful
Picture but again was questioned after Lee’s and Yang’s suggestion that the weak force does not conserve parity. They also suggested that the C invariance is broken in the weak decays. Landau , however, rescued the picture by pointing out that CP should be a good symmetry and that by exchanging the C operation with a CP operation, the results should still hold.
Non-Conservation of CP
The picture above worked well for another seven years. Then in 1964, James Cronin, Val Fitch and collaborators [70] (Nobel Prize 1980 to Cronin and Fitch) announced the very surprising result that they had found the process  The decay mode was found to be small fraction 2 x 10-3 of all charged decay modes. This was totally unexpected. All theories that had been  so far constructed were invariant under the CP-symmetry. Since there was very strong evidence that the combined CPT symmetry must be conserved, the breaking of CP indicated that the T invariance also had to be broken for this process. For quite some time, CP breaking was only found in kaon physics. To keep the formalism of Gell-Mann and Pais, it was necessary to give the coefficients in their mixing formula small imaginary contributions.
There were quickly several suggestions how to explain this new effect. Lincoln Wolfenstein  introduced a super weak Δ S = 2 interaction which could explain the effect. It only affected decays of kaons, so any other decay which violates the CP invariance would refute this proposal. It would take some 35 years before this was detected in B-decays.
CP-Transformations in a Quantum Field Theory
We see from the formula above that to get CP-violating effects in a quantum field theory we must have complex parameters. We do have complex fields but also need complex coupling constants. A CP transformation of a complex field can be written aswhere α is an arbitrary angle. Suppose now that the interaction term is of the formwhere g is a coupling constant and O an operator bilinear in the field. Let us now perform a CP transformation on this termBy choosing the angle such that
α = -2 arg(g), it is found that the interaction is invariant even though we started with a complex coupling constant. Hence, in order to have a CP violation more fields and more couplings were needed. We must check if the couplings stay complex when we perform field redefinitions and use the freedom in the CP transformations. From this we see that we cannot have CP violation in the Gell-Mann-Lévy-Cabibbo theory. There must be more fields.
[* PKB- So Sakarav CPT Violation theory was not sufficient  to fit with  Gell man again and where went antimatter]
The Work of Kobayashi and Maskawa
After the tumultuous breakthrough in 1971, the particle physics world became focused on the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg Model. At last, there was a quantum field theory that satisfied all the requirements that the previous research had set up for such a theory. It was also seemingly consistent, and quantum corrections could be computed. It was, of course, not clear that this was the most correct model. Within a year or so, many possible such theories were constructed that all agreed with the experimental data of the day. They only differed in the outcomes of higher quantum corrections which so far it had not been possible to test. It was at this time in 1972 that two young Japanese physicists from Sakata’s Nagoya School, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa  addressed the problem of CP violation, this time in terms of the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg Model. Since they knew of the analysis above, they realized that they had to extend the model to get a term with a true complex coupling constant. They concentrated on the coupling of the W- particles to the quark fields. It is schematically of the form. . Can such a term had a complex coupling constant? They started by investigating models with two families of quarks. They found that there was no way to get a complex coupling constant however they tried to play with different representations under the SU(2) symmetry group, unless they added new scalar fields. Finally, they investigated a model with three families with SU(2) quantum numbers, generalizing the ones that Salam and Weinberg used for the quarks u, d and s
They then found that via a unitary transformation of the quarks d, s, and q3 a coupling with a free phase is obtained that cannot be absorbed in another term. This was in fact a result known in mathematics since around 1950, but the contacts between mathematics and physics were not enough great around 1970. Suppose there are two vectors with N components
connected via a unitary matrix  It was then possible to make a so-called Iwasawa decomposition  such that .  The matrices D1 and D2 are diagonal and each contain n phases. These can be absorbed in the quark fields. One of them is an overall phase that is not observable. The counting of degrees of freedom is then: VCKM and U have n2 degree
of freedom. The diagonal matrices D take away 2n-1 degrees of freedom. Hence the remaining degree of freedom for  When n=2, the result is 1 as in the case of the Gell-Mann-Lévy-Cabibbo theory. In the case n=3, there are four degrees of freedom which could be expressed as three angles and a phase. In a three-dimensional space, there are only three independent angles. Hence the fourth degree of freedom has to be imaginary. Kobayashi and Maskawa wrote the remaining matrix as
where  , etc. and the explicit phase δ is seen. The angle θ1 was the Cabibbo angle. When discussing quark mixing, the matrix was usually called the Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Nowadays, the matrix is written in a slightly different form, recommended by the Particle data Group ,
where  Again, the fact that the three-family theory contains CP violation is witnessed by the presence of a phase angle that cannot be transformed away. A convenient expression summarizing the condition for CP violation using a commutator of products of mass matrices was given in 1985 by Cecilia Jarlskog .
The Experimental Verification of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Theory
The Kobayashi-Maskawa paper was submitted on Sept 1, 1972. At that time, only three quarks were known. Their theory contained six quarks and was not particularly noticed at the time. There was strong evidence for a fourth quark which had been put forward in 1970 by Sheldon Glashow, Jean Iliopoulos and Luciano Maiani . There was a problem with the then existing theory for the weak interactions. It led to strangeness changing neutral currents which were not seen in experiments. The three authors suggested the introduction of a fourth quark, which came to be called the charm quark, c. By introducing this quark, two full families are obtained and strangeness changing neutral currents are indeed suppressed. In 1974, a new, quite heavy particle, the J/ ψ-particle, was indeed found by Samuel Ting et al  and Burton Richter et al. [77] (Nobel Prize to Richter and Ting 1976). It was rather quickly understood as a c c state. Particles with a charm quantum number were discovered a few years later. Signs of a new heavy lepton started to come in 1975 and the discovery was established in 1977 [78] (Nobel Prize to Martin Perl 1995). This indicated a third family of leptons. At this stage, the Kobayashi-Maskawa paper started to come into focus, at the beginning for model building but soon also for phenomenological purposes that Now the evidence the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg Model was indeed the correct one for the . weakand electromagnetic interaction was also accumulating. Also in 1977, Leon Lederman (Nobel Prize 1988) and his group found the fifth quark, the b-quark [79]. It was not until 1994 that the sixth quark, the t-quark, was discovered . The discovery of the b-quark and its long lifetime led to new possibilities to test the CP violation and to choose between the KM Model and Wolfenstein’s proposal. The b-quark has the same quantum numbers as the s-quark apart from its inherent quantum number. Neutral B mesons (with one b-quark) must then have the same CP properties as the kaons. In fact, it was argued that the violation should be quite large for non-leptonic decays in the KM Model. This led to the setting up of “B factories” at SLAC at Stanford and KEK in Japan. The respective collaborations BABAR in US and BELLE in Japan have now measured the CP violation in remarkable agreement with the model  and all experimental data are now in impressive agreement with the model [58]. It has been shown that Nature follows the Kobayashi-Maskawa Model to describe the weak interactions in particle physics. The fundamental constituents of Nature come in three families, at least at the energies we can measure, and that allows for a CP violation distinguishing matter and antimatter. It should be mentioned too that the model also passes all theoretical checks that physicists have set up.
In 1967, Andrei Sakharov [82] (the Nobel Peace Prize 1975) pointed out in a famous work that CP violation must be the cause of the asymmetry in the universe. It contains more matter than antimatter. The CP violation that the KM Model gives rise to is most probably not enough to explain this phenomenon. To find the origin of this CP violation we probably have to go beyond the Standard Model. Such an extension should exist for other reasons as well. It is believed that at higher energies other sectors of particles, so heavy that the present day accelerators have been unable to create them, will augment the model. It is natural that these particles will also cause CP violations and in the tumultuous universe just after the Big Bang, these particles could have been created. These particles would have been part of the hot early universe and could have influenced it, by an as yet unknown mechanism, to be dominated why by matter. Only future research will tell us if this picture is correct.
The question of the mass of elementary particles has also been answered by spontaneous broken symmetry of the hypothetical Higgs field. But the Higgs field, was not stable, so when the universe cooled down, the field dropped to its lowest energy level, its own vacuum according to the quantum definition. Its symmetry disappeared and the Higgs field became a sort of syrup for elementary particles; they absorbed different amounts of the field and got different masses. Some, like the photons, were not attracted and remained without mass; is thought that at the Big Bang the field was perfectly symmetrical and all the particles must had zero mass.

  But still the question remains why the electrons acquired mass that no one has answered yet and where went antimatters.

Earlier Nobel Prizes within the field
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1999: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1999/index.html
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1980: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1980/index.html
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1969: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/index.html
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1957: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1957/index.html


Post-3
Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe? Our Theory-
Fraser
09-April-2008 06:28 PM#13
Go Back

And
pranab

Go Back

General Astronomy
The Universe   consisted [in its earliest moment of big bang] of large masses of matter and antimatter which was to be organized into Nebulas, galaxies, stars, and planets. According to this view about construction of the universe, the matter and antimatter should co-exist at some early stage in the Big Bang. For it only if the temperature was very high enough it should be possible for nucleons and anti nucleons to rub their shoulders with each other’s. Simple theory suggests that they should after ward annihilate each other’s with production of photons and neutrinos. To account a universe in which matter and anti matter were separated in separate galaxies it is therefore necessary to explain how such a separation could have taken place at very early stage in the development of primeval fire ball?
It is one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology. The question of existence of antimatter in significant quantities in the present universe. in our galaxy! The question of whether antimatter had an equal role with matter in making up galaxies? In a contemporary Para diagram of Grand Unified theories & Gauge Theories (String Theories) these questions are related to the questions of nature of charge, parity variations at high energy. The questions of separating matter and antimatter, proton and antiproton, helium and anti helium. The symmetry between matter and antimatter [ i.e baryon symmetry in the cosmology ] that was once observed  at accelerator had forced many scientists  and astrophysicist to think that  there existed  also a similar balance  in the universe  of matter and antimatter at most early phase of the universe. It is one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology. But we don’t see or don’t find antimatter in our observable universe. Our observable universe is made of matter only. Why? Antimatter  always annihilate with matter into radiation as per Dirac. If that was so, then there would  not be any matter to make up galaxies, our observable universe. Was the matter and antimatter mixed together? Or another probability was that the matter and antimatter were in  two separate compartments? If the later was true, then we must have another Universe. That universe was then made of antimatter.(Authors Theory). However universe consisted of  large mass of matter and antimatter-  standard Big Bang model says so. On this view, in authors opinion, is that matter and antimatter must co-existed  all together  at some early stage of Big Bang.? For it ,only when the temperature was high enough, it was possible for nucleons and anti nucleons, quarks and anti quarks to rub their shoulders with each others, and simple theory suggest that these rubbing resulted annihilation with production of photons and neutrinos. H. Alfeven etal ( Alfeven .H – Rev. Mod. Physics Vol37; P652; 1965) did bring out a mechanism which permitted region of matter and antimatter to co-exist together in our galaxy, even without appreciable mixing. Otherwise in early state of universe [when a homogeneous universe] there would have to be also a mechanism for separating matter and antimatter so that galaxies were formed in clusters. Then the big questions remain 1) what was the mechanism for separation of matter and antimatter? 2) Where went the bulk of antimatter?  3) Does the antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies exist and were capable of nuecleosynthesis? Does the antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies at all exists that Mr. Rupak Bhattacharjee suggested in his concept of anti Universe?  5) If at all exists what is the way of communication from our universe made of matter to a Universe made of antimatter? Pranab Kumar-   Does the universe contain  also anti galaxies- a myth or a reality? Space Light Vol 4 P7-13; 1998). Defining a region of mass MR as a typical unit of matter and antimatter according to the conventional Big Bang model of the universe, there were small excess of baryon particles (~1 in 109) over the anti particles in the early stage of evolution of universe. At that time the thermal energy “KT” exceeded the rest energy mpc2 of baryon particles. It was to the excess amount of KT, for that we see the present existence of matter in the universe. So as the thermal energy dropped bellow mc2, the baryons and anti baryons started annihilated and there leaving just excess of baryons intact. Let us consider a model of universe that was initially filled up with the thermal radiations. Its expansion was described by the scale factor R (t) which behaved approximately like t -1/2 while the temperature varied likeR-1. For the early stage of the universe, the effect of space curvature was negligible. It was known in the history of such a model, the model can be divided in to several periods according to content of thermal radiation. The Hadronic (KT≥100mev), Leptonic (KT≥ 1mev) and Radiative (KT≥300K). Super imposed on division, on evolution of baryons, we have to consider also other periods. The separation period (KT≥350Mev), annihilation period (KT≥25Kev) and coalescence period (T>300K). There was some interest in 1970s regarding the existence of the antimatter in the universe. Stiegman. G in 1969 ( Stiegman. G. – Nature Vol224; P447; 1969) showed that if the space time were filled with equal mixture of matter and antimatter then gamma ray flux that resulted from nucleon and anti nucleon annihilation would be far above the observed limit. But according us, there were much possibilities that matter and antimatter existed quite separately in large regions consisting solely of one characteristic type, perhaps in the form of galaxies and anti galaxies (Bhattacharjee Rupak and Bhattacharya Pranab) separation, one can assume that a process probably existed in the early Big Bang model. This process could however separate matter and antimatter into contiguous regions at some early epoch of Big Bang. We can also assume that the regions remain separated until and after decoupling would prevent collision between them, owing to the effect of radiation. After decoupling, the material contained in several such regions started to collapse and coalesce. The collapse and coalescence led to an annihilation of particles from regions to anti regions. The rate at which coalescence occurred, depended on the scale of density fluctuation. Defining a blob of mass  MB, as the largest commonly occurring density fluctuation, existing at decompleing, we know from galaxy forming theory that the minimum mass of the blob was ~107MO jeans mass. It is also well known that any gravitational bound group of blob will eventually undergo collapse. But due to the expansion of the universe, the collapse would not proceed rapidly until the density contracted. The collision cross section for blob contained in such group became very high once collapse set in. So if both matter and antimatter were present in early universe, one must expect a considerable amount of annihilation to occur at the time of collapse. SO There must be a separation period for matter and antimatter. In the separation period the particles and antiparticles [Quarks and anti quarks/ R particles and Anti R particles/ Neutrinos and anti neutrinos/ Gluons and anti gluons] separated spatially as a consequence of their statistical repulsion. This was initially induced by fluctuation (Bhattacharjee Rupak and Bhattacharya Pranab Kumar- Does universe contain antigalaxies – a myth or a reality? – Space Light  Vol4; P7-13; 1998).  One can compute the size as “δ,” as the individual condensation containing an excess of nucleon and anti- nucleon reached during 10-5 S of the period. The total baryonic number in that period was 1028. Near the end of separation period the universe was filled up with emulsion of nucleons and anti nucleons with a topical size δ=3x10-4c.m. The next came annihilation period. When temperature fell bellow the critical temperature (T) the particles and antiparticles [quarks and anti quarks] started to annihilate. The annihilate process was then controlled by diffusion so that densities D and N (Nucleons) and N-(anti nucleons) satisfy the equation as given below
δΝ/δΤ=DV-2N-αN N-,       δN-/δΤ=δV-N-αNN- (Bhattacharjee Rupak). At the end of this period a typical fraction of  10-8  or more nucleon survived. They were still in the form of emulsion with a typical size of 105cm and with a ty. This was however very far from a galactic mass. During annihilation the process first gave birth chiefly to pions and through their decay to high-energy photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos successively. The transfer of momentum by photons and electrons produces an annihilation pressure at boundary between matter and antimatter. To find the behavior of matter and antimatter, which were probably in contact through a common boundary, the effect of high-energy photons and leptons was a dominant feature, because these particles exerted a very strong pressure and kept the heating system on. Radiative pressure was  very dominant, so that pressure due to heating tended to balance annihilation. With the possible exception of cosmic gumma rays, observation yielded essentially no information  on the relative amount of matter and antimatter beyond our solar system. What the observation told us was that matter and antimatter are  rarely ,if ever found together.
 What was the mechanism that matter and antimatter were then separated?. Consider a gas of proton, antiproton, electron and positron, which is sufficiently  diluted and then annihilation can not be neglected there. In general, such a gas will be situated in a magnetic field say “B” ,  in a Gravitational field say “G” and in a electromagnetic field  of  flux “F”. Each of the fields will then be assumed static and homogeneous. In particular length  scale for variation in “B” must be large enough  that particle drifts arising from magnetic in homogenetics are also negligible. The protons and antiprotons will be much more strongly influenced  by Gravitational field than by  Radiation field. As well as spiraling around the magnetic line  of forces the heavy particles  will therefore have a drift velocity  Vh= mPxgxB/qB2 ,where mP is the proton mass, q is the particle charge,.[Bhattacharjee Rupak & Bhattacharya Pranab Kumar – Does the Universe contain also anti galaxies- a myth or a reality- Space Light; Vol4 P7-13;1998] .Because of their small mass, and larger scattering cross section, the electrons  and positrons will feel much weaker Gravitational force due to radiation pressure. It is however to be noted  that just electric current through gas does not heavily result in separation of charges, and the opposed drift of matter need not produce an actual matter- antimatter  separation. On the other hand, matter and antimatter in an isolated cloud or in extended medium, with an appropriate field configuration should achieve some degree of separations. Because, proton and antiproton, electron and positron fluxes will not be equal in general. There will be some separation  of charge leading to an electrical field “ E “ and ExB drift. As ExB drift increases, the heavy particles acquire  an inertia which tends to remove  the original difference  between proton and antiproton  and electron and positron  fluxes will not be equal  in general. There will be some separation  of charge leading to an electrical field “ E “ and ExB drift. As ExB drift increases, the heavy particles acquire  an inertia which tends to remove  the original difference  between proton and antiproton  and electron and positron  fluxes.New York university physics department  had isolated a particles that switches back and forth in its anti form spontaneously. Some theories have been then put forth at the antimatter that we have been observing is not the exact opposite of real matter based on hydrogen atom displaying weight. Up until now antimatter was believed only to be created from pure energy as in collision of matter( Gerald Lukaniuk www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t-40211 & highlight=antimatter 6th april2006). It is known that neutral βs meson(β-anti quark &s anti quark) spontaneously transform into its antimatter particles. The current theory of particle physics states that βs meson oscillates very quickly. As a result of their oscillation an very difficult to detect what happens to antimatter. BATAVIA’, illinos, scientist of D.Zero collider deflector collaboration at department of energy,s Fermi national Accelerator laboratory had announced that their data on the properties of subatomic particles βs  meson(βsubs) suggest that particles oscillates between matter and antimatter in one of nature’s fastest rapid free process more than 17 trillion times per second. one of the greatest mysteries of the universe is its apparent composition of only matter and not the anti matter. If matter and antimatter were created equally at the time of Big Bang  matter and antimatter should have annihilated in to pure energy. In fact in real universe it did not happened. How did our universe of matter survived is a big puzzle. Laboratory evidence made it however possible to observe some form of matter oscillating into antimatter and back. The CP theory states such The CP symmetry- it is the mirror form of matter. It is a measurement of the matter antimatter oscillation of β sub S mesons and it is the first measurement of oscillation of this particular particles. Experiment with beta mesons showed partial violation of CPT invariance. The TRAP experiment found no violates of CPT in cyclotrons frequencies with proton and antiproton level. Shakarov’s CP violation theory[ Nobel prize winner in physics-1975] gives however some clue to what happened to antimatter. According to this theory the antimatter& most the matter would have annihilated. But CP violation means that matter and antimatter did not always behaved in the same way resulting in a one in billions imbalance of ordinary matter. Symmetry is important mathematical concept used in fundamental physics to describe particles property. Antiparticles mirror their related particles by having opposite sign for several properties, particularly the electrical charges. Particle theory expresses this relationship in terms of mathematical operator or mirror designated as”C” which changes the sign of charge and other properties. In this way operating on a particle with the C mirror yield an antiparticle. Another mathematical mirror “P” reverses particle interaction in the space rather like flipping the right handed gloves into left handed, one “P” changes the sign of a property called “Parity” which according to dirac equation is opposite for particle and antiparticles. In a particle interaction the sign for “C” and “P” totaled over the particles involved are same before and after the interaction then C and P  are each and to be conserved. Now as it happens C&P are not always conserved and there occurs CP violation. This CP violation also explains lack of antimatter in our universe

So  the big question appeared before us  What happened to these antimatter?. After the Plank epoch, when the age of the universe  was  t ≤10-43S and the temperature of the universe was T≥109Gev , we can be sure enough , that the interactions between the matter and  the antimatter at their first  quark level   became unimportant. This was because  of that rate for gravitational interaction   was much less then the expansion rate of the universe. Although the interactions between matter and antimatter particles  kept each of them separately in a thermal equilibrium   and thus probably Two world were created. These Two world did not feel  each others existence at very microscopic level. During the primordial nucleosynthesis of the early universe, which started 1S after the initial Big Bang moment, the yield of the Big Bang depended on the expansion rate of the Universe. The expansion density PT= P+Ps by R0/R= [(δπGN/3)(P+Ps)]1/2 where P and Ps= density of matter and Antimatter, R= Cosmic scale factors. During this early epoch the universe was radiation dominated with P=g (π2/30)T4 where g counts the effective number of degrees of freedom particles (Rupak Bhattacharjee and Prof. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya). The temperature of the particle world and that of anti particle world were not the same. The inflation occurred in the two worlds in both the sector but not necessarily simultaneously. The inflation involved was a random event in the nucleation of a bubble or in the formation of a fluctuation region. At the beginning of the inflation the universe was in false vacuum state for both the world. The bubble nucleated for one world, first say for antimatter world. As the bubble grew exponentially in physical size, both the temperature of matter and antimatter decreased exponentially. At this time the ratio of entropy remained constant. When the antiparticle vacuum energy was converted into radiation, the antiparticle temperature raised and entropy decreased. Eventually a bubble of fluctuation region formed for the matter world within the antimatter bubble. During the second phase of inflation, new bubble grew exponentially. When the vacuum energy of ordinary matter world converted into radiation, the temperature of particle world raised to a temperature, which was exponentially larger than the temperature of the antiparticle world.  Thus the entropy was reduced further. To an exponentially small value and the matter dominated the visible universe. According to Big Bang model of Universe, there was small excess of matter then antimatter (~1 in 109) in the early stage of evolution, when the thermal energy KT exceeded the rest of energy mpc2. The baryons and anti baryons annihilated and then leaving just excess of baryon intact. From a fit of nucleon-nucleon scattering theory, the evidence of π, η7, ω, ρ, and mesons can divide the nucleon and anti nucleon scattering amplitude. There are bound states of nucleon and anti nucleon pairs, which can be identified with mesons π, ρ, ω, and η7. Such a situation in which some particles appear as bound states and act as agent for Special Forces. Dashen .R  (Dashen. R Physics Review-Vol187; P345; 1969) summarized a basic formula relating to Gibb’s potential Ω to it’s value Ω0 for free particles and to collision matrix –
S Ω =Ω0   -KT/2πδEc-E/KT trace [clogs (E) ee-u1n1]. Analysis of this result drives a phase transition at a temperature of KT of the order of 350 Mev. Above this temperature, nucleon and anti nucleon tended to remain separately from each other’s.

. We do not Know yet exactly  what happened to the antimatter. Perhaps the LHC will give us a clue


Refrerence
1] Star Stories and the Nobel Prizes
2]Why There's More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe” Thread at BAD Astronomy and universe today www.bautforum.com thread  author Fraser and 7th  reply by  Gourhead dated 05-April-2008 
www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/72136-why-theres-more-matter-than-antimatter-universe.html - 311k

3] Nambu , Kobayashi and Maskawa’s(Nobelprize winner of 2008 inPhysics) Advance Report http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/phyadv08.pdf 
www.extremeastronomy.com/.../1883-why-matter-is-more-then-antimatter-in-the-universe-our-theory.html


5]  
Symmetry or Breaking the symmetry- what was the laws of nature?Symmetry or Breaking the symmetry- what was the laws of nature? Author Pranab
www.bautforum.com/.../80592-Symmetry-or-Breaking-the-symmetry-what-was-the-laws-of-nature
Copy Right © _ belongs to Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya  Under Copy right Rules of IPR, please Do not try to Infringe it to keep you safe
 Our Theory
  1. Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe? Our Theory-
    Why There's More Matter than Antimatter in the Universe


    Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum >

    And
    Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe?-Our Theory
    pranab


    Extreme Astronomy in

    General Astronomy
    The Universe consisted [in its earliest moment of big bang] of large masses of matter and antimatter which was to be organized into Nebulas, galaxies, stars, and planets. According to this view about construction of the universe, the matter and antimatter should co-exist at some early stage in the Big Bang. For it only if the temperature was very high enough it should be possible for nucleons and anti nucleons to rub their shoulders with each other’s. Simple theory suggests that they should after ward annihilate each other’s with production of photons and neutrinos. To account a universe in which matter and anti matter were separated in separate galaxies it is therefore necessary to explain how such a separation could have taken place at very early stage in the development of primeval fire ball?
    It is one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology. The question of existence of antimatter in significant quantities in the present universe. in our galaxy! The question of whether antimatter had an equal role with matter in making up galaxies? In a contemporary Para diagram of Grand Unified theories & Gauge Theories (String Theories) these questions are related to the questions of nature of charge, parity variations at high energy. The questions of separating matter and antimatter, proton and antiproton, helium and anti helium. The symmetry between matter and antimatter [ i.e baryon symmetry in the cosmology ] that was once observed at accelerator had forced many scientists and astrophysicist to think that there existed also a similar balance in the universe of matter and antimatter at most early phase of the universe. It is one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology. But we don’t see or don’t find antimatter in our observable universe. Our observable universe is made of matter only. Why? Antimatter always annihilate with matter into radiation as per Dirac. If that was so, then there would not be any matter to make up galaxies, our observable universe. Was the matter and antimatter mixed together? Or another probability was that the matter and antimatter were in two separate compartments? If the later was true, then we must have another Universe. That universe was then made of antimatter.(Authors Theory). However universe consisted of large mass of matter and antimatter- standard Big Bang model says so. On this view, in authors opinion, is that matter and antimatter must co-existed all together at some early stage of Big Bang.? For it ,only when the temperature was high enough, it was possible for nucleons and anti nucleons, quarks and anti quarks to rub their shoulders with each others, and simple theory suggest that these rubbing resulted annihilation with production of photons and neutrinos. H. Alfeven etal ( Alfeven .H – Rev. Mod. Physics Vol37; P652; 1965) did bring out a mechanism which permitted region of matter and antimatter to co-exist together in our galaxy, even without appreciable mixing. Otherwise in early state of universe [when a homogeneous universe] there would have to be also a mechanism for separating matter and antimatter so that galaxies were formed in clusters. Then the big questions remain 1) what was the mechanism for separation of matter and antimatter? 2) Where went the bulk of antimatter? 3) Does the antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies exist and were capable of nuecleosynthesis? Does the antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies at all exists that Mr. Rupak Bhattacharjee suggested in his concept of anti Universe? 5) If at all exists what is the way of communication from our universe made of matter to a Universe made of antimatter? Pranab Kumar- Does the universe contain also anti galaxies- a myth or a reality? Space Light Vol 4 P7-13; 1998). Defining a region of mass MR as a typical unit of matter and antimatter according to the conventional Big Bang model of the universe, there were small excess of baryon particles (~1 in 109) over the anti particles in the early stage of evolution of universe. At that time the thermal energy “KT” exceeded the rest energy mpc2 of baryon particles. It was to the excess amount of KT, for that we see the present existence of matter in the universe. So as the thermal energy dropped bellow mc2, the baryons and anti baryons started annihilated and there leaving just excess of baryons intact. Let us consider a model of universe that was initially filled up with the thermal radiations. Its expansion was described by the scale factor R (t) which behaved approximately like t -1/2 while the temperature varied likeR-1. For the early stage of the universe, the effect of space curvature was negligible. It was known in the history of such a model, the model can be divided in to several periods according to content of thermal radiation. The Hadronic (KT≥100mev), Leptonic (KT≥ 1mev) and Radiative (KT≥300K). Super imposed on division, on evolution of baryons, we have to consider also other periods. The separation period (KT≥350Mev), annihilation period (KT≥25Kev) and coalescence period (T>300K). There was some interest in 1970s regarding the existence of the antimatter in the universe. Stiegman. G in 1969 ( Stiegman. G. – Nature Vol224; P447; 1969) showed that if the space time were filled with equal mixture of matter and antimatter then gamma ray flux that resulted from nucleon and anti nucleon annihilation would be far above the observed limit. But according us, there were much possibilities that matter and antimatter existed quite separately in large regions consisting solely of one characteristic type, perhaps in the form of galaxies and anti galaxies (Bhattacharjee Rupak and Bhattacharya Pranab) separation, one can assume that a process probably existed in the early Big Bang model. This process could however separate matter and antimatter into contiguous regions at some early epoch of Big Bang. We can also assume that the regions remain separated until and after decoupling would prevent collision between them, owing to the effect of radiation. After decoupling, the material contained in several such regions started to collapse and coalesce. The collapse and coalescence led to an annihilation of particles from regions to anti regions. The rate at which coalescence occurred, depended on the scale of density fluctuation. Defining a blob of mass MB, as the largest commonly occurring density fluctuation, existing at decompleing, we know from galaxy forming theory that the minimum mass of the blob was ~107MO jeans mass. It is also well known that any gravitational bound group of blob will eventually undergo collapse. But due to the expansion of the universe, the collapse would not proceed rapidly until the density contracted. The collision cross section for blob contained in such group became very high once collapse set in. So if both matter and antimatter were present in early universe, one must expect a considerable amount of annihilation to occur at the time of collapse. SO There must be a separation period for matter and antimatter. In the separation period the particles and antiparticles [Quarks and anti quarks/ R particles and Anti R particles/ Neutrinos and anti neutrinos/ Gluons and anti gluons] separated spatially as a consequence of their statistical repulsion. This was initially induced by fluctuation (Bhattacharjee Rupak and Bhattacharya Pranab Kumar- Does universe contain antigalaxies – a myth or a reality? – Space Light Vol4; P7-13; 1998). One can compute the size as “δ,” as the individual condensation containing an excess of nucleon and anti- nucleon reached during 10-5 S of the period. The total baryonic number in that period was 1028. Near the end of separation period the universe was filled up with emulsion of nucleons and anti nucleons with a topical size δ=3x10-4c.m. The next came annihilation period. When temperature fell bellow the critical temperature (T) the particles and antiparticles [quarks and anti quarks] started to annihilate. The annihilate process was then controlled by diffusion so that densities D and N (Nucleons) and N-(anti nucleons) satisfy the equation as given below
    δΝ/δΤ=DV-2N-αN N-, δN-/δΤ=δV-N-αNN- (Bhattacharjee Rupak). At the end of this period a typical fraction of 10-8 or more nucleon survived. They were still in the form of emulsion with a typical size of 105cm and with a ty. This was however very far from a galactic mass. During annihilation the process first gave birth chiefly to pions and through their decay to high-energy photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos successively. The transfer of momentum by photons and electrons produces an annihilation pressure at boundary between matter and antimatter. To find the behavior of matter and antimatter, which were probably in contact through a common boundary, the effect of high-energy photons and leptons was a dominant feature, because these particles exerted a very strong pressure and kept the heating system on. Radiative pressure was very dominant, so that pressure due to heating tended to balance annihilation. With the possible exception of cosmic gumma rays, observation yielded essentially no information on the relative amount of matter and antimatter beyond our solar system. What the observation told us was that matter and antimatter are rarely ,if ever found together. From Previous Post con.......
    What was the mechanism that matter and antimatter were then separated?. Consider a gas of proton, antiproton, electron and positron, which is sufficiently diluted and then annihilation can not be neglected there. In general, such a gas will be situated in a magnetic field say “B” , in a Gravitational field say “G” and in a electromagnetic field of flux “F”. Each of the fields will then be assumed static and homogeneous. In particular length scale for variation in “B” must be large enough that particle drifts arising from magnetic in homogenetics are also negligible. The protons and antiprotons will be much more strongly influenced by Gravitational field than by Radiation field. As well as spiraling around the magnetic line of forces the heavy particles will therefore have a drift velocity Vh= mPxgxB/qB2 ,where mP is the proton mass, q is the particle charge,.[Bhattacharjee Rupak & Bhattacharya Pranab Kumar – Does the Universe contain also anti galaxies- a myth or a reality- Space Light; Vol4 P7-13;1998] .Because of their small mass, and larger scattering cross section, the electrons and positrons will feel much weaker Gravitational force due to radiation pressure. It is however to be noted that just electric current through gas does not heavily result in separation of charges, and the opposed drift of matter need not produce an actual matter- antimatter separation. On the other hand, matter and antimatter in an isolated cloud or in extended medium, with an appropriate field configuration should achieve some degree of separations. Because, proton and antiproton, electron and positron fluxes will not be equal in general. There will be some separation of charge leading to an electrical field “ E “ and ExB drift. As ExB drift increases, the heavy particles acquire an inertia which tends to remove the original difference between proton and antiproton and electron and positron fluxes will not be equal in general. There will be some separation of charge leading to an electrical field “ E “ and ExB drift. As ExB drift increases, the heavy particles acquire an inertia which tends to remove the original difference between proton and antiproton and electron and positron fluxes.New York university physics department had isolated a particles that switches back and forth in its anti form spontaneously. Some theories have been then put forth at the antimatter that we have been observing is not the exact opposite of real matter based on hydrogen atom displaying weight. Up until now antimatter was believed only to be created from pure energy as in collision of matter( Gerald Lukaniuk www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t-40211 & highlight=antimatter 6th april2006). It is known that neutral βs meson(β-anti quark &s anti quark) spontaneously transform into its antimatter particles. The current theory of particle physics states that βs meson oscillates very quickly. As a result of their oscillation an very difficult to detect what happens to antimatter. BATAVIA’, illinos, scientist of D.Zero collider deflector collaboration at department of energy,s Fermi national Accelerator laboratory had announced that their data on the properties of subatomic particles βs meson(βsubs) suggest that particles oscillates between matter and antimatter in one of nature’s fastest rapid free process more than 17 trillion times per second. one of the greatest mysteries of the universe is its apparent composition of only matter and not the anti matter. If matter and antimatter were created equally at the time of Big Bang matter and antimatter should have annihilated in to pure energy. In fact in real universe it did not happened. How did our universe of matter survived is a big puzzle. Laboratory evidence made it however possible to observe some form of matter oscillating into antimatter and back. The CP theory states such The CP symmetry- it is the mirror form of matter. It is a measurement of the matter antimatter oscillation of β sub S mesons and it is the first measurement of oscillation of this particular particles. Experiment with beta mesons showed partial violation of CPT invariance. The TRAP experiment found no violates of CPT in cyclotrons frequencies with proton and antiproton level. Shakarov’s CP violation theory[ Nobel prize winner in physics-1975] gives however some clue to what happened to antimatter. According to this theory the antimatter& most the matter would have annihilated. But CP violation means that matter and antimatter did not always behaved in the same way resulting in a one in billions imbalance of ordinary matter. Symmetry is important mathematical concept used in fundamental physics to describe particles property. Antiparticles mirror their related particles by having opposite sign for several properties, particularly the electrical charges. Particle theory expresses this relationship in terms of mathematical operator or mirror designated as”C” which changes the sign of charge and other properties. In this way operating on a particle with the C mirror yield an antiparticle. Another mathematical mirror “P” reverses particle interaction in the space rather like flipping the right handed gloves into left handed, one “P” changes the sign of a property called “Parity” which according to dirac equation is opposite for particle and antiparticles. In a particle interaction the sign for “C” and “P” totaled over the particles involved are same before and after the interaction then C and P are each and to be conserved. Now as it happens C&P are not always conserved and there occurs CP violation. This CP violation also explains lack of antimatter in our universe

    So the big question appeared before us What happened to these antimatter?. After the Plank epoch, when the age of the universe was t ≤10-43S and the temperature of the universe was T≥109Gev , we can be sure enough , that the interactions between the matter and the antimatter at their first quark level became unimportant. This was because of that rate for gravitational interaction was much less then the expansion rate of the universe. Although the interactions between matter and antimatter particles kept each of them separately in a thermal equilibrium and thus probably Two world were created. These Two world did not feel each others existence at very microscopic level. During the primordial nucleosynthesis of the early universe, which started 1S after the initial Big Bang moment, the yield of the Big Bang depended on the expansion rate of the Universe. The expansion density PT= P+Ps by R0/R= [(δπGN/3)(P+Ps)]1/2 where P and Ps= density of matter and Antimatter, R= Cosmic scale factors. During this early epoch the universe was radiation dominated with P=g (π2/30)T4 where g counts the effective number of degrees of freedom particles (Rupak Bhattacharjee and Prof. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya). The temperature of the particle world and that of anti particle world were not the same. The inflation occurred in the two worlds in both the sector but not necessarily simultaneously. The inflation involved was a random event in the nucleation of a bubble or in the formation of a fluctuation region. At the beginning of the inflation the universe was in false vacuum state for both the world. The bubble nucleated for one world, first say for antimatter world. As the bubble grew exponentially in physical size, both the temperature of matter and antimatter decreased exponentially. At this time the ratio of entropy remained constant. When the antiparticle vacuum energy was converted into radiation, the antiparticle temperature raised and entropy decreased. Eventually a bubble of fluctuation region formed for the matter world within the antimatter bubble. During the second phase of inflation, new bubble grew exponentially. When the vacuum energy of ordinary matter world converted into radiation, the temperature of particle world raised to a temperature, which was exponentially larger than the temperature of the antiparticle world. Thus the entropy was reduced further. To an exponentially small value and the matter dominated the visible universe. According to Big Bang model of Universe, there was small excess of matter then antimatter (~1 in 109) in the early stage of evolution, when the thermal energy KT exceeded the rest of energy mpc2. The baryons and anti baryons annihilated and then leaving just excess of baryon intact. From a fit of nucleon-nucleon scattering theory, the evidence of π, η7, ω, ρ, and mesons can divide the nucleon and anti nucleon scattering amplitude. There are bound states of nucleon and anti nucleon pairs, which can be identified with mesons π, ρ, ω, and η7. Such a situation in which some particles appear as bound states and act as agent for Special Forces. Dashen .R (Dashen. R Physics Review-Vol187; P345; 1969) summarized a basic formula relating to Gibb’s potential Ω to it’s value Ω0 for free particles and to collision matrix –
    S Ω =Ω0 -KT/2π∫δEc-E/KT trace [clogs (E) ee-∑u1n1]. Analysis of this result drives a phase transition at a temperature of KT of the order of 350 Mev. Above this temperature, nucleon and anti nucleon tended to remain separately from each other’s.

    . We do not Know yet exactly what happened to the antimatter. Perhaps the LHC will give us a clue


    Refrerence
    1] Star Stories and the Nobel Prizes
    2] “ Why There's More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe” Thread at BAD Astronomy and universe today http://www.bautforum.com/ thread author Fraser and 7th reply by Gourhead dated 05-April-2008
    http://www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/72136-why-theres-more-matter-than-antimatter-universe.html - 311k

    3] Nambu , Kobayashi and Maskawa’s(Nobelprize winner of 2008 inPhysics) Advance Report http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/phyadv08.pdf
    4] Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe?-Our ...theory at Extreme Astronomy Extreme Astronomy > Astronomy > General Astronomy
    http://www.extremeastronomy.com/.../1883-why-matter-is-more-then-antimatter-in-the-universe-our-theory.html

    5] Extreme Astronomy > Astronomy > General Astronomy

    Symmetry or Breaking the symmetry- what was the laws of nature? Author Pranab
    http://www.bautforum.com/.../80592-Symmetry-or-Breaking-the-symmetry-what-was-the-laws-of-nature
    6] Antimatter & Anti universe by pranab
    http://www.bautforum.com/.../41772-antimatter-antiuniverse.html

  
In The short our theory is [ Bhattacharya’s Model of Universe is]

(Our Proposed Theory by Rupak Bhattacharya &professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya of 7/511 Prbapalli PO-Sodepur Dist 24 parganas W.B and Mahamyatala Garia Kolkata-84

After the Plank epoch, when the age of the universe was t ≤10-43S and the temperature of the universe was T≥109Gev , we can be sure enough , that the interactions between the matter and the antimatter at their first quark level became unimportant. This was because of that rate for gravitational interaction was much less then the expansion rate of the universe. Although the interactions between matter and antimatter particles kept each of them separately in a thermal equilibrium and thus probably Two world were created. These Two world did not feel each others existence at very microscopic level. During the primordial nucleosynthesis of the early universe, which started 1S after the initial Big Bang moment, the yield of the Big Bang depended on the expansion rate of the Universe. The expansion density PT= P+Ps by R0/R= [(δπGN/3)(P+Ps)]1/2 where P and Ps= density of matter and Antimatter, R= Cosmic scale factors. During this early epoch the universe was radiation dominated with P=g (π2/30)T4 where g counts the effective number of degrees of freedom particles (Rupak Bhattacharjee and Prof. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya). The temperature of the particle world and that of anti particle world were not the same. The inflation occurred in the two worlds in both the sector but not necessarily simultaneously. The inflation involved was a random event in the nucleation of a bubble or in the formation of a fluctuation region. At the beginning of the inflation the universe was in false vacuum state for both the world. The bubble nucleated for one world, first say for antimatter world. As the bubble grew exponentially in physical size, both the temperature of matter and antimatter decreased exponentially. At this time the ratio of entropy remained constant. When the antiparticle vacuum energy was converted into radiation, the antiparticle temperature raised and entropy decreased. Eventually a bubble of fluctuation region formed for the matter world within the antimatter bubble. During the second phase of inflation, new bubble grew exponentially. When the vacuum energy of ordinary matter world converted into radiation, the temperature of particle world raised to a temperature, which was exponentially larger than the temperature of the antiparticle world. Thus the entropy was reduced further. To an exponentially small value and the matter dominated the visible universe.
 References
 Published as Thread: Where Went the Anti matter? At BAD astronomy And Universe Today Forum  www. bautforum.com  on 3oth august 2010

Seethe following Links Published
 http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107287-Where-Went-the-Anti-matter- 
at BAD Astronomy &universe today Forum
At science Blogs of AAAS
at YahooAnswer
 at Science News