U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2011, 08:58 PM
 
16,834 posts, read 14,430,560 times
Reputation: 20750

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
Matter doesn't win over antimatter as they will both annihilate each other as you are more-than-likely aware of. One explanation for why matter seems to dominate, at least in [most] of our Universe is that there are pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter. The Big Bang had such an explosive force that it pushed matter and antimatter away from each other at such speeds that they were not able to interact with each out and cancel each other out, and as the Universe cooled--at least in our corner--matter was able to dominate since tremendous heat is required to produce the positrons necessary for antimatter. Now, such events as matter and antimatter interacting did, and do, happen throughout the Universe and create areas of nothing but photons, hence why matter and antimatter exist in pockets. It happens in our own atmosphere, the interaction that is--not the formation of pockets.

The Universe is so vast that pockets of each can exist for very long periods of time without encountering each other, but perhaps antimatter are more common at the edges of the Universe seeing as how the kinetic energy created by the expanding Universe may still be powerful enough to create the temperatures necessary for positrons to be emitted from decay and as the insides cool, matter becomes more prevalent?
Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baryogenesis seems to suggest that matter and antimatter were not created equally.

Actually observation of the known universe shows us that matter hugely outnumbers antimatter, at least NOW.

Do you have any thing that actually supports the idea that antimatter is as common by mass as matter?


Quote:
It is also theorized that an antimatter galaxy would look the same as one comprised of matter.

But, are they really chiral particles? I thought the only difference between matter and antimatter was the charge on the e (negative for electron and positive for positron)?
I apologize if I wasn't clear. I am not suggesting that early matter showed chirality but rather the same conditions that gave rise to the CP violation favoring the production of matter has translated to chirality of biological molecules.


Quote:
As for the bias in chirality....If I remember from orgo...atoms can bond and form in many ways, although some have a preferred method based on the electromagnetic force and/or polarity of the particular atom[s].
Actually the basis for chirality in biological molecules is asymmetry of the carbon atom.

Based on your mention of EMF I think you are confusion chirality of particles in physics (in terms of their "spin") with chirality of molecules. Not to say that I do not think the two are related.

Quote:
So here you have many atoms bonding together to form different isomers, but the bias for a particular molecule to be favored lies in the fact that that one particular configuration just happens to be the one shape that fits what-ever other organic or inorganic molecules it needs to attach to or interact with. The rest in the racemic mixture continuously break and form bonds until they too find the right configuration to "move on".
This isn't true for most organic compounds. A true racemic mixture will be utilized just as much as one in which there is a favored either left or right enantiomer.

For example a single d amino acid can be made into a protein, without effecting its biological function.

Since the CP violation gave rise to matter, and then gave rise to the stars, super nova and dust clouds in which the carbon (and other asymmetrical central atoms) arose, then isn't it possible the parity is what is causing the chirality?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2011, 08:19 AM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,205,785 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baryogenesis seems to suggest that matter and antimatter were not created equally.

Actually observation of the known universe shows us that matter hugely outnumbers antimatter, at least NOW.

Do you have any thing that actually supports the idea that antimatter is as common by mass as matter?




I apologize if I wasn't clear. I am not suggesting that early matter showed chirality but rather the same conditions that gave rise to the CP violation favoring the production of matter has translated to chirality of biological molecules.




Actually the basis for chirality in biological molecules is asymmetry of the carbon atom.

Based on your mention of EMF I think you are confusion chirality of particles in physics (in terms of their "spin") with chirality of molecules. Not to say that I do not think the two are related.



This isn't true for most organic compounds. A true racemic mixture will be utilized just as much as one in which there is a favored either left or right enantiomer.

For example a single d amino acid can be made into a protein, without effecting its biological function.

Since the CP violation gave rise to matter, and then gave rise to the stars, super nova and dust clouds in which the carbon (and other asymmetrical central atoms) arose, then isn't it possible the parity is what is causing the chirality?
Good points. If I may add to it slightly, current thinking about matter and antimatter seems to favor that there was pretty much an equal balance early on when the universe was still quite small following the initial expansion, perhaps during the inflationary epoch. In such condtions when new particles would have been tightly crammed together, collisions between early matter and antimatter would have been frequent. At some point as the universe continued expanding, more space became available which would have meant fewer collisions. Although it's still not clear as to why matter ultimately ended up with more particles left over than those of antimatter, it was those particles of matter that continued colliding into each other forming newer particles which enabled the conditions for the universe to form into what it is today. It could have just as easily have gone the other direction, resulting in a universe made of antimatter, or it could have resulted in the complete anniliation of both matter and antimatter leaving nothing in the universe except empty space.

Why There’s More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Early Universe

Matter-Antimatter Split Hints at Physics Breakdown: Scientific American
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Maryland not Murlin
8,193 posts, read 22,569,818 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baryogenesis seems to suggest that matter and antimatter were not created equally.

Actually observation of the known universe shows us that matter hugely outnumbers antimatter, at least NOW.

Do you have any thing that actually supports the idea that antimatter is as common by mass as matter?
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject; I am far from even being an amateur. What I write is based solely on my own knowledge [limited].

The problem with antimatter is that something that was comprised of it, such as a planet, would appear the same to us as a planet comprised of matter. Knowing this, NASA has created the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer in conjunction with MIT that will have the ability to discern particular nuances not observable by current techniques that would distinguish whether something is an antimatter object or not. In this case with NASA, entire galaxies.

In Search of Antimatter Galaxies - NASA Science

So it could be that antimatter does exist in equal numbers. The Universe is a large place, so it is possible.




Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Actually the basis for chirality in biological molecules is asymmetry of the carbon atom.
I stand corrected. I meant enantiomer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Since the CP violation gave rise to matter, and then gave rise to the stars, super nova and dust clouds in which the carbon (and other asymmetrical central atoms) arose, then isn't it possible the parity is what is causing the chirality?
In the core of an atom, I would say yes. But, I don't understand how parity could be directly related to chirality of an entire molecule alone since chirality should result whether CP is violated or not. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 06:22 PM
 
16,834 posts, read 14,430,560 times
Reputation: 20750
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject; I am far from even being an amateur. What I write is based solely on my own knowledge [limited].

The problem with antimatter is that something that was comprised of it, such as a planet, would appear the same to us as a planet comprised of matter. Knowing this, NASA has created the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer in conjunction with MIT that will have the ability to discern particular nuances not observable by current techniques that would distinguish whether something is an antimatter object or not. In this case with NASA, entire galaxies.

In Search of Antimatter Galaxies - NASA Science

So it could be that antimatter does exist in equal numbers. The Universe is a large place, so it is possible.
And then what does that imply for the fact that CP violations, which we know exist, cause a disparity in the antimatter vs. matter?





Quote:
In the core of an atom, I would say yes.
Do you mean a nucleus?

Quote:
But, I don't understand how parity could be directly related to chirality of an entire molecule alone since chirality should result whether CP is violated or not. Right?
If the nucleus causes the entire atom (through it interaction with its own electrons) to be asymmetrical than it is causing the chirality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 AM.

¬© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top