The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.

Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy.

Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter - about one particle per billion - managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.

https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

Tldr just because you didn't properly listen or the teacher was shit doesn't mean physicists are as ignorant about the subject as you think. No offense.

[+] hector@lemmy.today -10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I reject the big bang. I don't doubt there having been a bang that relatively seemed big.

Likewise I reject this leading theory.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Hmm, who do believe, the nigh-consensus of pretty much all physicists, or.... hector on the Fediverse?

I mean, one has literally millions of scientists and decades, if not centuries of established, peer-reviewed literature... and the other is a random stranger online who believes Charlie Kirk wasn't shot for being a massive right-wing cunt, but "as the first victim of the war on Iran."

Geez, that's a tough one. Couldn't possibly decide which way I'm leaning.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I’m calling it as a smooth sharks situation

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Edit: I'm an idiot.

[–] hector@lemmy.today -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't give a fuck what you think. But I trust that the experts do not have all the answers which has never been wrong up until this point in time. But no you're the smart one here.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

But no you're the smart one here.

Compared to you? Yes, I am.

If I had 1€ for everytime some cognitively limited champ says "well the scientists don't know everything", I'd have enough to buy a sufficient quantity of alcohol to forget I ever heard such bs.

That's the core of science. Knowing you don't know everything. If at any point someone in fact says they know everything, they've gone from a scientist to a religious lunatic.

No-one gives a fuck what you think. That's why we read CERN and not your comments when we wish to stay informed on what's going on in physics.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Damn, we should let those experts who have been studying this for their entire lives that you reject the theory! They're going to be so bummed they have to go back to the drawing board and throw out all the evidence and experiments they have done!