The Matter Of Antimatter: Answering The Cosmic Riddle Of Existence You exist. You shouldn't. Stars and galaxies and planets exist. They shouldn't. The nascent universe contained equal parts matter and antimatter that should ...
(Image by YouTube, Channel: World Science Festival) Details DMCA
You shouldn't exist, neither should stars, galaxies, and planets. The early universe contained equal parts matter and antimatter that should have wiped each other out immediately, effectively altering "The Big Bang" into "A Big Fizzle." Yet here we are: flesh, blood, stars, moons, sky. Why? Brian Greene moderates this amazing video with some remarkably brilliant minds. Dive deep down the rabbit hole of solving the mystery of the missing antimatter--or try to, as I did, grasping much of this but hanging on by a mental thread for many parts of it. Delightful humor and top thinking crowd here. [Though I admit I'd like to see them putting this extreme mental horsepower into pondering climate change, and come back to this topic later.]
Here's Josh Middledorf's comment on this one, slightly edited from a personal email: "Neil had the last word in the video... a very, very smart physicist [with this exception]. He said he's expecting that the universe will turn out to be just as simple as it could possibly be, specified by just one number, the magnitude of scale-free fluctuations coming out of the Big Bang.
The problem is that we have only done calculations with the very simplest conditions, and that's for two reasons. First, the equations of general relativity are so difficult that if the conditions were even a little less symmetric, we wouldn't be able to solve them. Second, we have no data about the first moments of the universe, so we have no information to support making more complex assumptions.
Another problem with Neil's statement is that all the complexity and all the arbitrariness of the laws of physics is swept under the carpet. The laws themselves are far from simple, the particle zoo seems completely arbitrary, and there are six numbers that seem fine-tuned to make an interesting universe for us.
A third problem is that the simple model doesn't work. We've had to patch it by postulating the existence of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are unobserved and unobservable (well--not quite--The work of Priyamvada Natarajan is unique) just to get the simplest things right. We can't do calculations well enough to know if the model supplemented by DM and DE is consistent with the world we know.
Finally, there's the science of psi and NDEs, biological violations of known physics, that most physicists have to deny in order to maintain the perspective that the laws they are working with are the fundamental laws of space and time and matter.
I think that the finding of Robert Jahn that human intention is able to affect the probabilities underlying quantum mechanics is one of the most profound discoveries of the 20th century, and almost everyone is going about business as usual, assuming he must be wrong. Except Dean Radin, who has replicated Jahn's result from an entirely different experimental design.
Brian Josephson is a Nobel physicist who thinks different, and I like his idea that biology is going to turn out to be as basic as physics."
While we're going down this rabbit hole, here's another that just popped up on my computer recently click here
Assuming you got this far, here's yet another that changed both my and Josh's thinking: click here
I trust that will give any physicist or curious reader a healthy break from politics for a while...
Lastly, I plan to write soon a sequel to this on my own NDE, since I experienced far more than these geniuses are talking about. Yes, it's anecdotal, but the most major event in my life of 71 years, going back to March 1969. [I'm hoping that by putting this statement to print, I will force myself to get to it soon! I wrote about it some time back on OEN, but not in this context.]