Charge Conjugation, CP Violation: An Adventure in SCIENCE

[luke_c]

When you get particles decaying you should get as much anti-matter created as matter, anti-matter being the opposite of matter. Well, the reaction and charge has to be OPPOSITE - so for that to happen, matter and anti-matter has to be created in equal amounts, you see? Conservation of matter can't create stuff out of thin air, right?

Well, if that's true, then it should stand to reason that we should have as much matter here as anti-matter. Well, look around - what have you got? Matter. Quite a lot of it. But no anti-matter! It's not here! So where's it all gone? Where's the fundamental asymmetry?

Well, when a k-meson or "kaon" decays, you should get a completely symmetrical result - which would be a three pion group. However, sometimes, it'll decay into a two pion group! AH WHAT DA HELL! No-one knows why this happens but it does.

So, apply this rule to about five seconds after the Big Bang, sometime during the Vacuum Era. With this asymmetric tendacy in the middle of all our beautiful symmetry, it could explain why there's so much matter here - but no anti-matter!

woooooooo

 

[luke_c]

I got some wacky person in my class to write this!

 

[Deleted User]

And, in time, Luke and this wacky person melded their molecules together, to create:

WACKY-LUKE




master of loco-roco

 

[B-Blue]

tl;dr + looks boring as hell

 

[Deleted User]

tl;dr + looks boring as hell

what a nice kid

 

[mthrnite]

Got about an hour to kill?



Fair warning, Dawkins yaks for about 2 minutes at the beginning, it's safe to skip that bit.

 

[Deleted User]

Anything related to Richard Dawkins is inherently crass and annoying, no thanks

 

[mameks]

Wow, what? Soooo, is there anti-matter? maybe it's in, like, another dimension, parallel, but the opposite of ours???

Anything related to Richard Dawkins is inherently crass and annoying, no thanks

I genuinely despise Dawkins, I myself am not religious, yet his view on religious matter p***es me off...

 

[Deleted User]

Wow, what? Soooo, is there anti-matter? maybe it's in, like, another dimension, parallel, but the opposite of ours???

Anything related to Richard Dawkins is inherently crass and annoying, no thanks

I genuinely despise Dawkins, I myself am not religious, yet his view on religious matter p***es me off...

No, anti-matter and matter are just made in unequal amounts when a kaon decays into an asymmetrical two pion group. More matter is made than anti-matter, which is why we have a lot of matter here and absolutely no anti-matter - pretty much the only time we get to see anti-matter is when we make it ourselves, by smashing up particles in proton-colliders, like the Large Hadron types!

and yeah, i'm not really very religious but dawkins is a total "something-or-other"

 

[mthrnite]

2 minutes of Dawkins.. like I said, skip it. Krauss is pretty awesome, and they became friends because Krauss was eating Dawkins' lunch.

 

[Deleted User]

2 minutes of Dawkins.. like I said, skip it. Krauss is pretty awesome, and they became friends because Krauss was eating Dawkins' lunch.

but just to think - i'd be watching something that dawkins helped create


eeeeuuuuurrrgghh

 

[mthrnite]

Well, if you insist on rejecting it out of hand, all I can say is, your loss, toots.
Kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater though, in case you care.

 

[ProtoKun7]

Fair warning, Dawkins yaks for about 2 minutes at the beginning, it's safe to skip that bit.

Anything related to Richard Dawkins is inherently crass and annoying, no thanks


QUOTE(shlong @ Jun 10 2010, 04:13 PM)

I genuinely despise Dawkins

These.

 

[mthrnite]

Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Krauss and Dawkins are from two completely different fields. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Dawkins did not create Krauss, and Krauss is not a disciple of Dawkins, in fact, to the contrary, they disagree on many things, probably some of the same stuff that you dislike Dawkins for actually. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. If you like physics, and are a layperson trying to understand some of the loftier concepts of physics, Krauss is pretty good at getting things across, in fact he kinda reminds me of Carl Sagan in that respect. Oh, and by the way, Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk, skip the first 2 minutes of the video and you'll be virtually Dawkins-free.

 

[Deleted User]

Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Krauss and Dawkins are from two completely different fields. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Dawkins did not create Krauss, and Krauss is not a disciple of Dawkins, in fact, to the contrary, they disagree on many things, probably some of the same stuff that you dislike Dawkins for actually. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. If you like physics, and are a layperson trying to understand some of the loftier concepts of physics, Krauss is pretty good at getting things across, in fact he kinda reminds me of Carl Sagan in that respect. Oh, and by the way, Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk, skip the first 2 minutes of the video and you'll be virtually Dawkins-free.

well, how can i argue with that

i can't

it'd actually be against the law

 

[mthrnite]

Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Krauss and Dawkins are from two completely different fields. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. Dawkins did not create Krauss, and Krauss is not a disciple of Dawkins, in fact, to the contrary, they disagree on many things, probably some of the same stuff that you dislike Dawkins for actually. Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk. If you like physics, and are a layperson trying to understand some of the loftier concepts of physics, Krauss is pretty good at getting things across, in fact he kinda reminds me of Carl Sagan in that respect. Oh, and by the way, Dawkins just introduces him, and has nothing further to do with the talk, skip the first 2 minutes of the video and you'll be virtually Dawkins-free.

well, how can i argue with that

i can't

it'd actually be against the law

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

(it really is a cool vid, I promise)