https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-close-understanding-why-universe-exists Scientists May Be Close to Understanding Why the Universe Exists Universal Imbalance Scientists think that they’ve taken a step toward finally understanding one of the greatest mysteries of the universe: why it exists in the first place. When the universe formed, it created both antimatter and matter, which destroy each other when they meet. So why there’s enough matter left to form all the galaxies, stars, and worlds out there is a key question. Now, Scientific American reports that scientists have made substantial progress toward providing an answer. Piecing It Together The theory, called leptogenesis, posits that the Big Bang spewed out a massive number of subatomic particles called neutrinos. When those neutrinos eventually broke apart, leptogenesis suggests that they happened to form more matter byproducts than antimatter ones. New findings out of Japan’s Tokai to Kamioka (T2K) experiment, which were published last week in the journal Nature, aren’t definitive evidence of the leptogenesis theory. But, pending the many follow-up experiments and analyses that would be necessary to actually make that declaration, SciAm reports that the findings do seem to strongly suggest that leptogenesis is on to something. Missing Data The study suggested there’s a 95 percent chance that the neutrinos break down into an uneven proportion of matter to antimatter, a measurement called CP violation. That sounds convincing, but it’s not good enough for such a fundamental mystery of the universe. “We don’t call it a discovery yet,” Stony Brook University researcher and T2K team member Chang Kee Jung told SciAm.
advanced physics is fascinating even though I don't know what they are talking about half of the time chaos theory is beyond me though, even though I've raised teenagers
Scientific American is my favorite magazine easily beating out number 2, U.S. News and World Report. Tied for number three are Field and Stream, Motor Trend and Popular Mechanics.
This subject always leads me to the concept of infinity, a concept beyond man's ability to grasp, even a little bit. When I think about ininity too long two things happen: I think of God; I head for the frig and grab a cold brewski.
A good friend of mine has a Ph.D. in physics, if it makes you feel better he doesn't know what he's talking about half the time either.
Adherence to the false premise that the universe began or was created exposes the stubborn refusal of scientists to embrace basic logic. They just can't wrap their tightly-wound minds around the fact that it has always been and will never cease to be. Science is the art of disproving the theories of past scientists.
Not quite right. Science is the process of building better and better predictive models of the universe around us.
Lol. I was gonna say. A step closer to what what was before? If not, then its not really a step closer.
You guys are too dumb to talk about dimensions, so I won't explain it to you. Suffice to say, our universe was empty and without form. The Big Bang was a leak from a parallel dimension. In the 1800s, one generation called it the book "Flatland." (Read it.) My generation called it "LSD." Now a new generation of scientists calls it the "multiverse," "string theory," etc. I don't know why I stoop to generously share my knowledge with barbarians.
Everything in the vast universe exists for the sole reason that some dude named God wanted to create a planet with little people on it so that he could judge them and sentence them to eternal hell or heaven. Obviously. It's just basic logic.
Believe what you will. I don’t plan on making a case for a faith-based view of the universe here. I’m just noting that the title to the article in the original post was a bit of an overstatement. They may have a better idea of what happened after the Big Bang, but not why or how it happened to begin with.
One of the generations called it "Time Cube." I forget whether that was your generation, my grandfather's generation, my dad's generation or my generation.
The title was just poor phrasing, or incomplete phrasing. It was trying to say "Scientists close to understanding why the universe exists, considering it shouldn't because all the matter should have annihilated with all the anti-matter." Not "Scientists close to understanding the metaphysical reasons why the universal exists."
