 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
(there are actually some promising leads)
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Last I had read, matter and antimatter were NOT created in equal amounts, but instead matter was created in slightly large amounts, and what we see is the matter that was left after most matter and anti-matter annahilated themselves. |
That's the idea, but it doesn't work. They need to have a theory which explicitly violates CP (which is essentially a time-revesal symmetry). The Standard Model does this (and this has been verified experimentally) but not nearly enough to explain the baryon asymmetry.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
There is no temporal symmetry. There is ATP symmetry, though (antimatter temporal parity). If you ran the universe backwards, switched left and right, and turned every particle into its antiparticle, the universe would look exactly the same. |
That is the whole point. If you assume CTP (it is more usual to use 'C' for 'charge conjugation') then CP-violation is the same as T-violation. The Standard Model violates CP and thus T, but only a little bit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
there is CP symmetry
it is just broken in weak interactions
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Rogan Josh
were you a particle phenomenologist?
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
Thus, there ISN'T CP symmetry... |
yes there is
it is just broken in some interactions
it is an excellent symmetry in strong interactions for example
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001 time: 05:33
|
|
Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.
Volkswagon built my car. I can study the end product as much as I want, indeed until I understand everything about every part and build the car myself. It doesn't change the fact that Volkswagon made the car. Science is the study of the works wrought by God. I don't believe in the "puff there it is" version of creationism. God is a little more creative than that 
And while religion ultimatley requires faith, how is science any different? Religious minded people examine their form of "evidence," mainly metaphysical, and come to a point where they can accept a theory as true. Scientists collect as much evidence as possible, normaly physical, until they come to a point where they can accept a theory (note THEORY of gravity) as true.
And lets not kid ourselves, each side also shares a very similar trait: not everyone comes to the same conclusion. There are many different religions, and then sects within each religion. There are many different scientific theories out there, and many different divisions about the understanding of those theories.
Neither side has given up on inovation or modification of those theories. I know hundreds of poeple, who after examining the "evideance", switched from one religion to another. I also know many college chums who have changed their line on science from week to week. New religious groups form every day, new scientific theories are advanced every day, and the most extreme of the inovators in each field are treated in much the same way.
The only difference between religion and science is what each consider evidence, and since the evidence for each comes from idependant sources (pysical or non) they can exist happily next to each other. Unless of course you are hell bent on MAKING contridictions (ie hard corps creationists).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the name was created by a preist
it gained popularity in the media, we didn't really see the point of renaming it
JM
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|