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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 part
and 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.
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.
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 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
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
, 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.
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 as
where α is an arbitrary angle. Suppose now that the interaction term is of the form
where g is a coupling constant and O an operator bilinear in the field. Let us now perform a CP transformation on this term
By choosing the angle such that
where 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 
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
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
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
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 ,
, 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 .
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 Japan
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
Why matter is more then antimatter in the Universe? Our Theory-
Fraser
 |
And
pranab
|
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
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
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? Author Pranab | ||
6] Antimatter & Anti universe by pranab
Our Theory
- 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
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
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
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/03/the_greatest_story_ever_told_-_4.php#comment-2769554
At science Blogs of AAAS
at YahooAnswer
at Science News
No comments:
Post a Comment