RE: Getting grips on the pre-big-bang era with a universe/anti-universe pair

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Getting grips on the pre-big-bang era with a universe/anti-universe pair

View the full context

gokhan83kurt (57)in #steemstem • 7 years ago (edited)

As we know a few of antiparticles are left after that famous big clash of matter and antimatter in the universe’s first moments. Yes, today the barionic matter is dominant but there are also some anti matter somewhere else in our universe. So your post makes me think that there still be an anti-universe which corresponding to the one before the big bang. And it overlaps with our universe’s dimensions with a back flowing time. And those anti particles have barionic matter counterparts in that anti universe

I couldn’t find any stupidity in the post. Maybe this comment of me could be the most stupid thing of this post☺️

7 years ago in #steemstem by gokhan83kurt (57)

Sort:

lemouth (72) 7 years ago

As we know a few of antiparticles are left after that famous big clash of matter and antimatter in the universe’s first moments. Yes, today the barionic matter is dominant but there are also some anti matter somewhere else in our universe.

This model actually also predicts the matter-antimatter asymmetry through thermal leptogenesis, which is something I haven't mentioned. This occurs through the existence of the two other heavier right-handed neutrinos (we have 3 of those guys in total). See here for more information.

So your post makes me think that there still be an anti-universe which corresponding to the one before the big bang. And it overlaps with our universe’s dimensions with a back flowing time. And those anti particles have barionic matter counterparts in that anti universe

Exactly. But I would say there is no really any overlap between both universe.

For the stupidity, it has been found. Check the other comments, you may get some hints ;)

$0.00

[-]

gokhan83kurt (57) 7 years ago

Still, have some questions in my mind:

It has been found that right-handed neutrinos can be very good dark matter candidates as they are stable, super heavy (200 billion times heavier than the heaviest known particle) and super-weakly interact.

You mean (sorry they propose) that the 20% of universe's mass is composed of those right-handed neutrinos?

But this sounds a little bit strange to me. Because as you mentioned they are not observed yet. And maybe impossible to detect. Which makes them only theoretical particles such as axions or WIMPs. And by the way, Has this theory any explanation about dark energy as well? (I've taken a quick look at the paper you've linked, however, I need to read it at a later time in detail)

I've found the stupidity by myself when I read the post again. And had a disappointment while I was about to click that link to learn about 'right-handed neutrinos' and saw the hyperlink leads me to another place :))

$0.00

[-]

lemouth (72) 7 years ago

You mean (sorry they propose) that the 20% of universe's mass is composed of those right-handed neutrinos?

Yes, this is exactly what the model predicts.

Because as you mentioned they are not observed yet. And maybe impossible to detect. Which makes them only theoretical particles such as axions or WIMPs. And by the way, Has this theory any explanation about dark energy as well? (I've taken a quick look at the paper you've linked, however, I need to read it at a later time in detail)

They are by no means axions or wimps because they just don't interact at all with the Standard Model. They are not thermal relics but dark matter is here produced via another mechanism connected to gravity.

PS: sorry for the disappointment. There is a second link a couple of sentences later in the post :)

$0.00