[HN Gopher] New Antimatter Physics Discovered at the Large Hadro...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New Antimatter Physics Discovered at the Large Hadron Collider
        
       Author : Bluestein
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2025-07-20 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.scientificamerican.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.scientificamerican.com)
        
       | cmrx64 wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/a7VB3
        
       | pdonis wrote:
       | The title is clickbait (as is unfortunately common now with
       | Scientific American). This is not "mysterious"--CP violation is
       | expected according to the Standard Model, it just hasn't been
       | observed in baryons before, only in mesons, as the actual Nature
       | paper [1] makes clear.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09119-3
        
         | gus_massa wrote:
         | Let's use the opportunity to ask technical questions / confirm
         | my interpretation...
         | 
         | When I was young, nobody was sure if the
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo%E2%80%93Kobayashi%E2%8...
         | was real or complex. IIUC Wikipedia, now it's confirmed to be
         | complex!!! [1]
         | 
         | The CP (charge-parity) symmetry is interesting, because if it
         | is broken it means that the T (time) symmetry is also broken.
         | In Quantum Mechanics if the operator to calculate the energy is
         | real, then the system is invariant if you magically change the
         | variable t to -t, this is call time inversion, that sounds cool
         | but it's just a mathematical trick and not a device to travel
         | back in time.
         | 
         | So a complex Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix ensure there is a
         | "problem" when you change t to -t and this indirectly may
         | explain why if the initial universe has the same amount of
         | matter than antimatter, now it's not balanced.
         | 
         | If I can continue with some speculations because my handwaving
         | is not strong enough ... In
         | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09119-3/figures/1
         | 
         | * in the top diagram a bottom quark transforms into a up quark,
         | and W- particle, and then the W- particle decays into a strange
         | and anti-up quark. This transformations uses 1 or 2 of the
         | coefficients of the matrix.
         | 
         | * in the bottom diagram, there is an intermediate top quark,
         | but after more interactions the result is the same. But the top
         | quark here forces to use the others coefficients of the matrix.
         | So the result has not only a different amplitude, but it's also
         | complex!!! [1]
         | 
         | For the final result you must combine both diagrams and also a
         | standard complex phase caused by the advance of time, something
         | like |A*e^{itm}+B|^2. When you replace t with -t, the sign of
         | the phase changes. If both diagrams had real amplitudes A and B
         | it doesn't matter because |A*e^{-itm}+B|^2.
         | 
         | But if A is real and B=b+ci then |A*e^{itm}+b+ci|^2 is
         | different of |A*e^{-itm}+b+ci|^2 and you get an asymmetry.
         | 
         | Is this correct? Anything to add/remove/rewrite?
         | 
         | [1] Sorry fo the exclamations marks. Nobody told me.
         | 68.8deg+-4.5deg is a lot. It's not slightly complex, it's very
         | complex.
        
           | MengerSponge wrote:
           | i => -i under T. If you want to read even more, time reversal
           | is an antiunitary transformation. (That's the magic phrase to
           | anchor your searches)
           | 
           | Physics is built on symmetries. They're how we can multiply
           | the predictive power of simple theories. Time-reversal is fun
           | and important, but it isn't _actually_ about reversing time.
           | It 's about understanding the symmetry governing the
           | interactions that define our existence.
        
         | musicale wrote:
         | > as is unfortunately common now with Scientific American
         | 
         | This is something I've noticed as well. I'm not sure when it
         | started, but it seems to have gotten worse.
        
       | PaulHoule wrote:
       | A big deal.
       | 
       | One of the outstanding mysteries of particle physics is why there
       | is so much matter in the universe but practically no antimatter.
       | 
       | The mainstream explanation is that there is a big
       | matter/antimatter asymmetry in the lepton sector, say involving
       | neutrinos, and this imbalance is transmitted to the hadron sector
       | through
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphaleron [1]
       | 
       | and it is the hadron sector that matters because it has almost
       | all the mass. If there is a strong enough asymmetry between
       | hadrons though, that might be sufficient to explain the
       | imbalance.
       | 
       | [1] not "physics beyond the standard model" but something like
       | the Higgs boson which is predicted by it!
        
         | terminalbraid wrote:
         | How do I reconcile your claim that this news is "A big deal"
         | with respect to the matter-antimatter asymmetry when the
         | article states plainly
         | 
         | "This puny amount of CP violation, however, cannot account for
         | the profound asymmetry between matter and antimatter we see
         | throughout space."
         | 
         | and
         | 
         | "The observed CP violation seems to be in line with what has
         | been measured before in the quark sector, and we know that is
         | not enough to produce the observed baryon asymmetry."
         | 
         | ?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-07-20 23:01 UTC)