If I understood correctly, the hypothetical X Boson particle is what is responsible for the entire universe being the way it is.

You see, the big bang produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.  During the early moments following the explosion, there was a lot of annhilation, as the former collided with the latter.  With this in mind, one would think that there would be no matter or anti-matter anywhere in the universe.  Well obviously, that is not the case.  But why?  Because of X boson. Its a strange particle which, as it decays, produces slightly more mass than it had originally, resulting in the mild imbalance of matter over anti-matter.  Hence the current state of the universe. 

What I really find fascinating, however, is the fact that the matter produced by the X Boson particle accounts for less than 1% what was originally created by the Big Bang.  Mind boggling, isnt it?

WoundedButterfly WoundedButterfly
18-21, F
10 Responses Feb 22, 2009

More anti-matter than matter? <br />
That's interesting. Doesn't seem to make much sense, though. Where did you hear that?

So, eventually, we will disintergate because everything gets too heavy? <br />
Sounds reasonable to me...

yeah, no problem :)

Thanks!<br />
<br />
I'll take a look at that link.

Yeah, they do something with doppler shifts. They do something similar for clouds. It just sounds like a lot of busy work to sit down and crunch numbers until someone says, "we now think the constant is less than one... the universe is expanding because of dark matter." What if they find another form of invisible matter that moves the constant back to another value and they say, "crap guys, I guess it's converging again... better luck in the next universe."

seriously, this kind of physics isn't really that exciting. It's kind of lame in my opinion. Try reading about the principle of least action. It's been around for over 300 years, and its triumph lies in being able to predict newton's laws of motion from nothing more than a philosophical idea. It has also been used throughout higher levels of physics.<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action<br />
that could get you started<br />
<br />
also, look at lagrangian mechanics: what spawned from this principle.<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics<br />
<br />
this site is probably easiest to understand<br />
http://www.eftaylor.com/software/Actionap<x>plets/LeastAction.html<br />
<br />
The idea is that ob<x>jects in space move in such a way that their "action" is minimized for their motion. It's creepy because it almost seems to invalidate the meaning of force. You don't say, "The force of gravity propelled the apple downward." You say, "The apple moved in the most economical way, as with all things in nature."

Oh?<br />
I was under the impression that the expansion was accelerating? You mentioned something about being able to tell how far away a galaxy is using calculations done with cepheid variable star pulsations. But what about for galaxies that are so far away that we cant see the individual stars? For those ones, they use what is called doppler shift (you may know it as red/blue shift) to figure that out. From what I last heard, the presence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe had serious implications for the big crunch theory. The expansion of the universe is getting faster, so the currently accepted model is the Big Freeze model.

that's the thing... they do consider that their laws don't work past a certain point. They just look back as far as they think they can and tell us what their current models say. Only fools would say that they are completely true.<br />
<br />
About the big crunch, people still aren't sure, and I haven't been keeping track, but the last time I heard about it, they thought it was still converging. It seems like they go back and forth on it, anyway. It comes from a constant that Einstein predicted through general relativity. According to the measurements that are made by looking at "standard candles" (stars the pulse at frequencies proportional to their intensity) the value of this measured constant appears to support the idea that the expansion of the universe is decelerating. The problem is that the constant is so close to 1 (which means constant velocity expansion) that some people wonder if our deviations from 1 are just error or if some new observation might knock it in the other direction.<br />
<br />
The unified force is really a fantasy that a lot of scientists have. The trend of finding more general representations of known forces leads them to believe that the most general representation of force may be discovered at some time in the future. People once believed that electricity and magnetism were about two different and unrelated forces. Eventually, someone found that currents produce magnetic fields and that changing magnetic fields produce currents, so they decided that these two forces were related.<br />
<br />
In time, Einstein's relativity was used to show that magnetism is simply a relativistic effect of electricity. Switch to a reference fr<x>ame that moves fast in another direction and you'll find that the electric field of a stationary charge array will change into the electric and magnetic field of a current.<br />
<br />
Electrons, however, are not believed to move very quickly in a current, so you might wonder how magnetic fields could possibly be a relativistic effect. The idea is that there are a lot of electrons with small relativistic contributions that add up into a noticeable field.<br />
<br />
(special) relativistic electrodynamics unifies all four of Maxwell's equations into one. The astounding agreement of this theory with retarded potentials and its equally successful ability to predict the behavior of electromagnetic waves make it strong evidence for the validity of special relativity.

I referred to the big bang as a moment of creation for lack of better term, if you will :)<br />
And I thought the big crunch scenario of the "end" of the universe had been ruled out? Supposedly all of the matter is not sufficient to produce the gravitational effects required for that to occur.<br />
The presence of dark matter, too, raises some serious questions regarding the future of the universe. <br />
<br />
"Some people are hoping that the particle doesn't exist, because the standard model (a model that describes the behavior of subatomic particles) would then collapse, having predicted something that doesn't exist."<br />
I have heard this argumentation too, but what these people fail to consider is that the universe and the laws of physics as we know them were probably quite different during those early moments. All the more so if it was prior to the seperation of the grand superforce into all of the smaller components we know today: electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong...etc

the big bang isn't really a form of creation.. it's just a point of infinite density in the past. According to all of the fancy observations that astronomers like to make, the universe appears to be expanding, and it appears that it may re-collapse eons into the future. Since the universe is expanding and cooling right now, its density is decreasing. If you work backwards, there must have been a point of infinite density where everything was really hot. This is the big bang. A lot of scientists think the universe was once an endless sea of subatomic particles and that, as these particles recombined, quarks, gluons, and other particles eventually came together to make hydrogen. By gravity, some hydrogen clouds collapsed into stars and the heat created by their internal pressure triggered fusion, creating the rest of the elements in the universe. Most of the organic compounds on our world were created by the existence of life.<br />
<br />
Whenever a particle decays, the particles it generates tend to have more mass than it did. For example, if you added up all of the mass of the protons and neutrons in a nucleus as measured for when they are single particles, the mass would come out to be greater than the mass of the nucleus. This is because mass can be converted to energy and some of this energy is used to hold the particles together. <br />
<br />
Nobody's really sure how, but it seems to make sense. Then again, that's what you could say about a lot of things in science.<br />
<br />
As far as the higgs boson, I never really read much about it. One of my professors said it was responsible for mass or something, so maybe you're right about that. I don't know. I do know that it has been predicted to exist at a particular energy level that hasn't been able to be reached by conventional accelerators. Some people are hoping that the particle doesn't exist, because the standard model (a model that describes the behavior of subatomic particles) would then collapse, having predicted something that doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I'm kind of tired of hearing about the higg's boson. Theoretical particle physics can be kind of cool, but its foundation is very weak... It's hard for me to believe a lot of it... especially with such things like semi-empirical formulas for atomic mass and liquid drop models...