Where is the anti-matter?

"Physicists make a living from solving problems so they have an incentive in creating problems where there aren't any" I am a software developer and today I learned that physicists and programmers are very much alike. Great stuff as always, thanks for sharing! P.s. "it's a highly speculative idea, that is a polite way of saying that is nonsense" makes a great line for your merchandise imho

Wonderful truth-telling, as always! There's almost certainly more auntie matter than anti-matter. My mother had three sisters - and it did seem at times like they would annihilate each other.

I've often wondered if the baryon asymmetry could just be a mundane statistical blip. Like, you can't flip a coin 10 times, or even 10⁹⁷ times, and expect to reliably get a perfectly exactly equal number of heads and tails, no matter how perfect the coin is or how perfectly you flip it.

I thought the entire point of this question is that when we produce antimatter ourselves, there is always a corresponding amount of matter particles created at the same time (edit: well, maybe not, according to some LHC results in 2010?). If no baryonic matter could exist at the moment of the big bang itself, what process created more matter than antimatter afterward and why are we unable to do the same, or perhaps even create more antimatter than matter?

Sabine, you aren't merely a talented communicator and physicist, you're a super talented EPISTEMOLOGIST, which is something I feel a lot of modern science communicators forget in the face of catchy headlines and hype. We must take the world as it is, and meet it on its terms, and when we can't cut through the fog, we have to be comfortable enough with ourselves to understand where the limits of knowledge end. You do that consistently and with pluck, so THANK YOU for that!

It is quite possible that our Galaxy has more ant-matter than anti-matter.

As an engineer who is fairly well versed in how the "normal size" things around me work, I really appreciate your videos that talk about the really small and really big that often tend to behave differently. Thank you!

I watch a couple of your videos every day. Even as s a 79 year old retired physicist they all are mind-expanding and give me several hours of thoughtful pondering. Thank you.

This reminds me a bit of the anisotropy stuff you touched on in a different video. The ratio could be 1 globally but fluctuate locally, so there's a hidden third question of, even if you assume that the ratio should be 1, you're sneaking in an assumption about the scale you'd expect to measure that at. The ratio is 1.000..whatever..001 in the observable universe. What makes this scale privileged? Perhaps we just randomly live in a matter-antisymmetric pocket of a matter-symmetric universe?

The low key humor in this video is on point. I love how you made this into a “teachable moment” about initial conditions and how our current theories work.

Sabine is a treasure for us who want to learn cosmology and physics but don't have formal training. She is brilliant and funny too.

I enjoy your style of communication so much, Sabine - thank you for what you do!

The explanation is very simple: God didn't have a calculator with enough decimals.

I think Baryon asymmetry is more interesting as to how it relates to conservation of baryon number, and what that may suggest about the laws of physics.

Very much appreciated. There's nothing better than listening to someone with a thorough understanding of complex subject matter who can explain it in ways that an ordinary mind can assimilate. Nothing.

I'm more skeptical of this one from Sabine. She is usually spot on but here I think we have reasons beyond the Dirac equation to suspect that the pure energy of the very early Big Bang would have resulted in a 1:1 ratio of a. to m. Also, I do think that the CP violating interactions that have been seen in strange and bottom quarks may suggest the answer to question of why we have more matter. These quarks can only be produced in high energy particle collisions. I know Sabin is down on further investment into HEP but this problem seems to me to be one of the few reasons that might justify further exploration and particularly at current or future HEP facilities. Sabine, correct me if I'm overstated my position. I'm generally sympathetic towards less funding for HEP but here, I'm not.

Didn't Feynman say that antimatter behaved like matter going backwards in time? If so, then couldn't it have been that at the big bang time went in both directions, and there is an antimatter universe evolving "backwards" in time relative to our "forward" direction?

I think the reason for '1' is quite simple: if matter and antimatter are same except for the charge, then these should be treated equally when it comes to creating matter/antimatter from 'nothing'. There should be no especial treatment for any of these. But that's more philosophy than physic I believe...

This was brilliant, and it's the first time I've remotely understood this "problem". Thanks.

Great video as always Sabine; that said... ... Saying that the intrigue is unwarranted seems to underplay the significance of a physical constant being observed as SO close to 1. The number 1 is so universal and important in describing mathematical relationships, why is it not intriguing to find a physical result that deviates from it by so little? Also, I don't see why the distinction between the questions "Why 1?" and "Why 1.0000000001?" makes the discussion any more or less valid. No matter the order of advance, either line of questioning would inevitably lead to progress, regardless of the ultimate truth. I definitely agree that pop-sci media tends to completely fudge the delivery of concepts in regards to this topic, but to imply that further studies are some kind of wild goose chase just seems too close-minded to me. EDIT: some words and phrases