The Economist comments on the recent success in keeping antimatter contained for more than seconds. We excerpt a mere paragraph which nicely describes a basic problem regarding anti-matter:
Antimatter cannot be the perfect opposite of matter, otherwise neither would exist at all. If they truly were perfect opposites, equal amounts of the two would have been made in the Big Bang, and they would have annihilated each other long since, leaving only light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation to fill the universe. That galaxies, stars and planets—and physicists to ponder such things—exist therefore means there is a subtle asymmetry between matter and antimatter, and that nature somehow favours the former. Two such asymmetries have indeed been found. But neither is big enough to explain why so much matter has survived. Being able to look at entire anti-atoms might give some further clue.
Antimatter cannot be the perfect opposite of matter, otherwise neither would exist at all. If they truly were perfect opposites, equal amounts of the two would have been made in the Big Bang, and they would have annihilated each other long since, leaving only light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation to fill the universe. That galaxies, stars and planets—and physicists to ponder such things—exist therefore means there is a subtle asymmetry between matter and antimatter, and that nature somehow favours the former. Two such asymmetries have indeed been found. But neither is big enough to explain why so much matter has survived. Being able to look at entire anti-atoms might give some further clue.
No comments:
Post a Comment