3 ms·

Twice that. One cup antimatter, one cup ambient matter.

by rainworld 5y ago

ta988 5y ago
I would prefer a cup of dark matter please.
- airstrike 5y ago
  Joseph Mallozzi has you covered, then
Retric 5y ago
Not everything that produces mater also produces antimatter otherwise the universe would be a 50:50 mix of each. Why Baryon asymmetry exists is unknown, but as long as we’re talking magic tech we might as well make it efficient.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > Not everything that produces mater also produces antimatter otherwise the universe would be a 50:50 mix of each. That's not known. It's also possible that the initial stuff of the universe, before inflation happened, had more particles than antiparticles. Since we have no physics for what happened before inflation started, this wouldn't break any theory at all. It's a bit unsatisfactory as theories go, but it is absolutely compatible with all physical observations so far.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That’s just a turtles argument, whatever happened before the Big Bang now has the asymmetry.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Well, technically whatever happened between the big bang and inflation. But, while unsatisfactory, this is not an invalid argument. It is very plausible that it is impossible to replicate the conditions of the big bang, or anything close to them, so it is plausible we will never be able to scientifically describe that process. As such, it is possible that the processes of the Big Bang (or whatever came before) somehow created more matter than anti-matter, but all of the physics that comes after is symmetrical with respect to charge. So, we have no reason to expect that we'll ever find a theory explaining why there is more matter than antimatter, just like we don't have any reason to expect to ever find a theory that explains why there are two kinds of electrical charge and not 5. So, it's not a promising avenue for research, and not a promising assumption. In contrast, there are reasons to expect we will some day find a theory of quantum gravity, since we know for sure matter does interact gravitationally and QM doesn't account for that.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Before or after the Big Bang you still get some process. The ability to replicate it is of course in question, but we are already talking about a device we have no idea how to build so that doesn’t change anything. As to impossibilities, we already figured out how to break conservation of energy due to the expansion of the universe. Arguing about what is in isn’t possible for some process we don’t know about seems silly.
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        I said nothing about impossible. I was discussing whether 'we will discover some process in the universe as it is that favors matter over anti-matter' is a useful working hypothesis, and my claim is that it is not. Of course, it is possible that one exists, just like expansion of space (which probably does exist, though apparently there are starting to be reasons to doubt that [0]) turns out to be a way to break conservation of energy or the speed of light. [0] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/new-evidence-against-standard-model-of.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/new-evidence-agains...

Twice that. One cup antimatter, one cup ambient matter.

ta988 5y ago

I would prefer a cup of dark matter please.

airstrike 5y ago
Joseph Mallozzi has you covered, then

Retric 5y ago

Not everything that produces mater also produces antimatter otherwise the universe would be a 50:50 mix of each. Why Baryon asymmetry exists is unknown, but as long as we’re talking magic tech we might as well make it efficient.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> Not everything that produces mater also produces antimatter otherwise the universe would be a 50:50 mix of each. That's not known. It's also possible that the initial stuff of the universe, before inflation happened, had more particles than antiparticles. Since we have no physics for what happened before inflation started, this wouldn't break any theory at all. It's a bit unsatisfactory as theories go, but it is absolutely compatible with all physical observations so far.
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s just a turtles argument, whatever happened before the Big Bang now has the asymmetry.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Well, technically whatever happened between the big bang and inflation. But, while unsatisfactory, this is not an invalid argument. It is very plausible that it is impossible to replicate the conditions of the big bang, or anything close to them, so it is plausible we will never be able to scientifically describe that process. As such, it is possible that the processes of the Big Bang (or whatever came before) somehow created more matter than anti-matter, but all of the physics that comes after is symmetrical with respect to charge. So, we have no reason to expect that we'll ever find a theory explaining why there is more matter than antimatter, just like we don't have any reason to expect to ever find a theory that explains why there are two kinds of electrical charge and not 5. So, it's not a promising avenue for research, and not a promising assumption. In contrast, there are reasons to expect we will some day find a theory of quantum gravity, since we know for sure matter does interact gravitationally and QM doesn't account for that.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Before or after the Big Bang you still get some process. The ability to replicate it is of course in question, but we are already talking about a device we have no idea how to build so that doesn’t change anything. As to impossibilities, we already figured out how to break conservation of energy due to the expansion of the universe. Arguing about what is in isn’t possible for some process we don’t know about seems silly.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        I said nothing about impossible. I was discussing whether 'we will discover some process in the universe as it is that favors matter over anti-matter' is a useful working hypothesis, and my claim is that it is not. Of course, it is possible that one exists, just like expansion of space (which probably does exist, though apparently there are starting to be reasons to doubt that [0]) turns out to be a way to break conservation of energy or the speed of light. [0] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/new-evidence-against-standard-model-of.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/new-evidence-agains...