The Matter Of Antimatter: Answering The Cosmic Riddle Of Existence

what our experimentalist colleagues can do to learn about nature. Yes. So, Janet, well, I thought maybe everyone would like to find their own positrons. So everyone should have a small envelope. I hope everyone has an envelope and inside the envelope there is a bubble chamber film. Everyone should have a piece of bubble chamber film. Each image is different. Actually, this is a movie. I'm sorry. What happens is there was a very large bubble chamber at Fermilab, so what happens with the bubble chamber is that you have a compressed liquid and when charged particles pass through it.

They create little bubbles and then when you decompress them, the bubbles become big and you can take a picture of them and there is a magnetic field. And that's what causes the particles to spin in the image, so each event is different? You can all take a look somewhere at your interactions with neutrinos if you can go ahead and find them, but what we think you'd really like to see is where the energy is converted into an int

matter

is a pair of anti

matter

, so this happens. In this image you have here, you can see it right there.

So tell us exactly what we're seeing there out of nowhere, which was actually a photon. So, that's a little packet of energy that's not electrically charged. So you can't see it on your detector. It suddenly becomes an electron and a positron and because we have a magnetic field. What happens is that the positive charge spins in one direction and the negative charge spins in the other direction? So what you get is a little vertex and then you have the particle traveling in one direction and the antiparticle traveling in the other direction and that's how we see the

antimatter

in our detectors and we know that it's fantastic

antimatter

and there should be at least At least one in each image, many photons come out that actually found their electron-positron pair.

Find it. You know when Dirac had to throw out his own solution because he was too afraid to say there was antimatter? You must also be very nervous about an experimentalist to affirm. They discovered antimatter. Oh yes Oh, is that so? You know as an explorer you run for this when you think you might have found something new, you spend a lot of time playing with it and trying to make sure it's exactly what you think it is and you have to search. to something in many different ways Because we have a problem experimenting with something called background.

This is where you see things that look like what appears on this signal that you're looking for, right? Well, the example I like to give is, let's say you are looking for redheaded women and you wanted to count the number of redheads in the world and you go out and count and you discover that there are many more redheaded women than you ever expected and that is due to tradition. So , all those redheaded women who aren't really redheads are the background. To worry about that Exactly when you're looking for things like this, even when you're looking for antimatter.

There is the antielectron, the positron, and a couple of decades pass before the next element of the world's antimatter disperses. It's very easy to get an electron to constantly rain on you, but it's like right now, yeah, in fact, if you have a banana, does anyone have a banana in their pocket? I dont want to listen. During the hour that you will listen to us, you will see that an antielectron will appear inside that banana. So to give you an idea, it's very simple to get an electron if you want something more massive like an antiproton.

You'll have to put a lot more energy into it than you can get by just waiting for banana to do something interesting. Then you have to build an accelerator. You have to build something that gives you. You start with one proton, you accelerate it, you go higher and higher and higher energy until you have enough energy to produce the pair because, again, you have to produce two particles. . Yes, there is a MC equal to the square, this is equal to MC squared, but you also have to conserve the charges. You have to get both at the same time.

And then if you have enough energy, if you build your accelerator. Perfect, you can produce an antiproton and when did you do it? That happens? Was that in 1955? In Berkeley, the main problem again is the Loreal effect. You get many more particles that are produced at the same time as the antiproton. So you have to produce an antiproton and prove that you have created an antiproton and what you see in the image on the right side is what happens when an antiproton that interacts with the photographic emulsion when it touches the emulsion, when matter meets antimatter, annihilates it and in the case of a positron.

It's not that spectacular. Here it will enter two photons. If an antiproton hits a nucleus, it basically tears it apart and these fragments fly everywhere and leave traces in the photographic emulsion. Good? So now these are examples of how to find an antielectron and an antiproton from them raining down in one way or another. What if they are controlled? Experiments in the laboratory are now something we can do to really create. In fact, this machine is just the predecessor of a machine. That is now working at CERN, a factory to produce antimatter and again. All it takes is to have a small bottle of hydrogen, you accelerate the protons after you have smashed it.

Hydrogen turns into a proton. The electron rises to a high enough energy to produce antiprotons. The problem then is that you have created the antiprotons and since you want to study them and they annihilate, then that is not exact Options Antimatter through that process, can we show that video of the greats? Thanks Motech, this is actually a video of the only antimatter factory in the world, which is actually at CERN or Antiproton Factory and it starts with a bottle of hydrogen, you take the hydrogen, tear it apart in an electric field and then through From a series of electric and magnetic fields you give it more and more energy until it has enough energy to be able to crash into a block of iridium at which point when it hits the iridium the kinetic energy is transformed into pairs of particles and antiparticles.

There's a picture of this lens that I think is nice to see because really all of this comes from the 1970s, 1950s, and 1970s. So you really see the technology as it was at that time. This is still the same font we are using. It's still the same device now that you know that the antiprotons that are produced move at almost the speed of light because the protons move very fast and you push them forward and inward. In order to study them you have to capture them. Yes, and catch them. That's the really hard part because they move so fast.

First you have to stop them. Then you need another accelerator that works the other way around. That's the antiproton decelerator instead of an accelerator. And this thing slows down the antiprotons from the speed of light to one-tenth the speed of light. It's as slow as possible. This is a practically pedestrian speed for physicists. At that point, you can barely trap these antiprotons, you can start hoping to trap a small percentage of the antiprotons that come out, and then how do you retain them? Good? I mean, very carefully. Because you have to keep them from touching the matter, obviously, so you're going to do this in a vacuum.

You can manipulate the trapped antiprotons once you have trapped them with electric fields and magnetic fields. So in a way, you touched them at a distance while holding them Well, in the center of a series of rings, these rings are all connected to batteries. Each one is connected to a different voltage and that allows you to create sort of potential landscapes like marbles, these antiprotons will roll around in this landscape and you can lift hills and move things. Is this something like that? We can create large quantities of it. Yeah, huge amounts, I mean 10 million antiprotons at a time, like what's 10 million and what?

Installation and this is truly a top of the line installation for an entire year. You'll end up with 10 to 14 antiprotons, which are really big numbers, except how many. I wonder how many, how many atoms, why. ? Few more than I was going to accept. 1 gram is Avogadro's number. So it's multiplied by 10 to the power of 23. 10 to the power of 20 means you're producing one-tenth of a nanogram of antimatter per year, right? Actually, it's not that I want to be, you know, the friendly competitor is here at Fermilab, on this side of the country. But I'm sure you remember the movie Angels & Demons that was there in 2009 and then.

Here in the United States. We still have the Tevatron running. And that was the largest antimatter factory in the world. Well, and at that point I did this little calculation because the question was asked about, you know, can we really explode? the Vatican as you know, as they told us in this beautiful film and you know, Victoria Vitra and Robert Lancome have to save the Vatican. So let us know the law is because you mentioned the movie. Regardless of my insistence, now we can. Right, you show a little clip of it. Then you have that small section of extremely combustible substance called antimatter.

We need to locate him immediately or evacuate Vatican City. I've never heard of antimatter being used as such. It has never been generated in significant quantities before. It is a way of studying the origins of the universe. When he was the most amazing movie and guy. I discovered in their movies that these people produced a quarter of a gram of antimatter and the CEO didn't know the status. And they must have expended enormous energy that must have cost them billions of billions of billions of dollars. And the director didn't realize it well, so not a huge budget Or at CERN it actually takes the age of the universe to get enough antimatter This small calculation that it will actually take a hundred million years to produce the amount of a quarter gram of antimatter It will cost the very small amount of money of five hundred billion dollars.

You know, I don't have it in my pocket, but I can get it tomorrow. And the most interesting thing is that I was thinking that living at CERN and passing through the Swiss border many times, how they smuggle it. from CERN to the Vatican because you know it could be that you were talking about this trap. It could be the size of a football field. So actually the track wouldn't have to be that big because of course if you can work with charged particles you need massive electric fields and massive magnetic fields, but if you transform this into atoms you can trap them and you don't need these huge grams of hydrogen that you can contain in a bottle.

Actually, I have to convert it to anti-hydrogen first, that's the tricky part. I thought that anti hydrogen if you do it, it will be very extremely difficult and seems unstable, right? No, it's actually easy to do the experiment, but keep it safe for transportation and you know, this is a really fascinating conversation here. But if you don't mind, we'll leave the angel's name as a topic for later conversation. Let's return to the UM the topic at hand. So let's see. We have antimatter and matter, we can actually produce it in various quantities. The puzzle we're really focused on here tonight is what is the universe like?

It was able to create matter and antimatter and yet somehow this matter remains around us. So, from that perspective. The first person who really gave us insight into this was a Russian dissident, Andre Soccer. Many want to give us a rough idea and then we can have a little visual, we can discuss what he told us that he was a physicist in Russia in the days of the Soviet Union, and that he was a pro-democracy person. He would like to present it many times in those days, but he came up with this wonderful idea. You may know that the universe had a way of preserving matter but discarding antimatter.

And what he did was so good, when the universe began with a big man, the enormous amount of energy was converted into matter. But as we just heard from Janet every time energy turns into matter, there is also an antimatter that always accompanies it one by one Yes, if we kept like this when any of us became bigger and colder and finally the matter and the antimatter will meet and again one by one They swell and disappear Yes Then he pointed out that If there is a small difference between the way matter and antimatter behave, perhaps there could be a small difference between them.

So if you start with a billion two billion, maybe one part of a billion antimatter will turn into matter. And then there is a small difference between the way matter and antimatter behave. When they meet, almost all of them disappear, but there is only a small part that remains ocular, so your numbers were a billion, let's say, antiprotons today: a billion plus a proton and you had that small imbalance, leaving us one particle left over for each a billion of these guys That's right. You say that would be enough if that imbalance gave rise to everything I see in the world around me.

So we actually live here at the expense of billions of friends. It has to be really great for them. So, Sakarov actually established aset of conditions that would not necessarily produce a very specific theory that would produce that imbalance, but rather a set of criteria that, if you could meet it, would give you a great chance of having this scenario that, who told you to describe, worked? So let's take a quick look. to get an idea of ​​what Sakarov had found, so if we can look at that little sequence where we start with the big bang as you mentioned, energy is creative it produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter and now we want to somehow move forward in time And go through some process, you can go to the next slide if you use this black box process Well, somehow give rise to this imbalance that you're talking about that we'll leave alone, you can go to the next one Unlike antimatter.

So the question you asked is what the heck is going on inside that black box. That's the real problem and to give you an idea of ​​what he found, we're just going to make an analogy that's a little hyped and a little silly, but anyway I think it gives you a taste of what he found instead of talking about particles and antiparticles. Instead, we'll talk about rabbits and anti-rabbits and imagine you have it and I'll explain this to you. So please don't move forward until I tell you. you to move forward. In fact, that's why they gave me a little clicker.

I was a little slow to take it in. If you can, just take a step back if you would like to slide once. That would be great. So imagine you start with the same number of rabbits and anti-rabbits. So in the animation we have two of them. They pass through the black box and now we have more rabbits and more anti-rabbits. That means we're allowing the numbers of these particles, or in this case, these rabbits, to change. If you can't change the number of protons or antiprotons, then you're dead because if you start with equal numbers, they can.

They don't change. They will always be the same numbers. But if they change in the way illustrated here, you still have symmetry. You still have the same number of orange rabbits as blue rabbits, so you don't have the imbalance that hit Oh, she was talking, so if we look at the next criteria. Now we want to start with the two rabbits and the two anti-rabbits, but we want them to pass through the black box in such a way that the number of rabbits differs from the number of anti-rabbits. If we could do that, we would have an imbalance. what Vitosha was talking about and that she gives us the opportunity to explain why there is matter left in the extra orange rabbits, in the extra rabbits, as opposed to the antirabbits.

Now the question, let me quickly put it in the language of particle physics. So imagine we have equal numbers, let's call it matter is to fill in the details of the black box To try to find a mechanism that would allow that to happen and clearly one of the things that needs to happen if there has to be some kind of symmetry between matter and antimatter and that leads us, but who taught? How to comment? I want to get to that first, but then we'll talk about some of the experimental work that has been trying to find differences between matter and antimatter that might allow us to realize the black box, but it's a small comment I want to make.

I was glad you didn't use antihuman for this. Yes, you just arrived. It's true, I thought of humans first. Climate would be an obvious choice. However, there was one color choice that subconsciously aligned with that decision. Anyway, move on Michael, you've certainly spent part of your career trying to find differences between matter and antimatter. I know you've done a varied experiment. You simply pass through part of the sector of possibilities. So basically what you're trying to do is look for a little imbalance. You're trying to see a small difference between matter and antimatter and however small it may be, it's one part in a billion, one part in a trillion, who knows how small this difference can be. ?

And if you're trying to measure this kind of difference with charged particles, you can do it. I mean one of the experiments, the base experiment, for example, at CERN, does this by measuring the properties of the antiprotons as they move inside. a magnetic field But at some point you are going to reach some limit, the systematic limit. You can't measure your magnetic field that precisely, so the maximum precision you can try to achieve is not to work with charged particles, but to work with neutral antimatter. Neutral systems, like atoms and atoms, are really cool because you can use lasers to probe atoms, you can measure them with extreme precision, so there has been an experiment, the ALF experiment, that has been measuring the light that is emitted by antihydrogen, antihydrogen and hiding atoms.

So what is it? How would you build a mm? What is it? You put two bits together. It's very simple. You take an antiproton. You take an antielectron. You put them together. You're a theorist, right? So that should be it and it's taken 10 years of hard work to create atoms, that's what we're looking at here. This is what the atom looks like. Symbolically, one of the first experiments to construct the antihydrogen atom was the Athena experiment. in 2002. It took almost 10 years between creating the first atom and being able to hold on to it to trap it because once you created it, your electric field is neutral.

Your magnetic fields are useless. It simply triggers, I see as for the antiproton that you have inside with the electrical opinion with the magnetic field. You hold it. Yes, you are a very, very strong field. It is very difficult to hold on to these atoms, but the alpha experiment managed to do it in 2010 and since then they have been firing everything they have at these atoms, laser light, microwaves, anything you can do to manipulate these atoms and measure their self. Basically we're trying to hit it with the excited laser exactly on an antielectron to jump a little bit, fall down as it falls, release some light, some night light and you can see where you do that with hydrogen like Well, if you do a comparative study , you can be sensitive to one part in 100 million, one hundred billion, one hundred trillion, it depends on how far you want to go with this and what kind of transition you're looking at? hydrogen antihydrogen very creative very By the way, the transition of these two arrows shown there They both illuminated two Nobel Prize winners, Ramsey on the right side and Hench on the left side.

So it's a business where you can expect to get a Nobel Prize, which is the deciding factor, right? This is one thing you can do, you can try looking at the light and the microwave is just another way, but for us to understand this, I guess what you're saying is that you're looking at some kind of energetic difference between those horizontals. lines Exactly that is telling you the energy of the light that is being emitted. So, if there was a difference between those separations, would you have found the goal you were looking for? What is the difference between you is a difference, it may not be the cause of what we are actually trying to understand, it would certainly be really exciting and if I had found some no, of course not, I would have heard about it.

If it was on the news, the media would have talked about all this. Now. You guys are doing it too, if I understand some experiments with gravity, see how Regular antimatter, a lot of people would think it should fall straight up instead of down. Yes, tell us a little about the idea of ​​also proving fundamental symmetry. to see if there is a difference between matter and antimatter. Gravity is really difficult to test with particles, so again you work with neutral systems and there is again the hope that you can find a difference now that hope is even more remote than trying to find a difference. in light spectra because there is absolutely no theory that predicts or accommodates any difference or can transform a difference in gravity into an asymmetry in the universe except Ito XI.

He is the only one who managed to write an article about it. As far as I know. I'm out of the Nobel Prize for writing. I thought I would never get Nobel Prizes. And the basic reason for this, I believe, is in Einstein's general relativity. If we go to our more refined description of gravity, gravity responds to energy, right? So if matter and antimatter have the same energy, then gravity seems to treat them at least on paper exactly the same and in fact we know that if you drop a lead brick and a plastic bottle they fall exactly at the same speed.

It's something that Adelberg has tested very precisely, for example, much more precisely than we can hope to do because, actually, spewing antimatter the way we would like to do it, like Galileo did. Well, a lead brick from the Tower of Pisa requires very, very cold antihydrogen, it has to have a temperature of about a millionth of a degree above absolute zero, and even then, the best you can do is a measurement of about a percentage of accuracy, so it's going to be many, many years until we get there and this experiment is underway, or yes, there are three experiments underway.

My experiment, the Aegis experiment, which tries a different approach. It will not throw atoms from a tower. In fact, we're going to shoot them like cannons out of a cannon. Those are our Ken balls out of a cannon and we watch the parabolic ball measure the parabolic trajectory. So that's the focus of the Aegis experiments. There are two others. The Alpha experiment has to tell me a little more about this. You will shoot them in some way that gives us a cartoon version and you will track their trajectories and determine if the actual trajectory differs to some extent from the correct one.

So you shoot them at maybe a thousand miles an hour. Sorry, just a second, a little faster. You can usually fly them over a meter, which is the distance we have room for, so they fly for a millisecond, they fall for a millisecond, and in a millisecond they fall a tenth of the way. My hair is very fine, so it is really difficult to measure the size. But we'll get there at some point. So, do the theorists in the group have hope that this experiment will give a positive result or do you think it is not the answer?

YO? I'd love to, but I think it's unlikely, right? Well. Thank you very much So, Janet and Toshi, you have been thinking about a different type of antimatter probe, in a sense a more subtle probe that has to do with other particles called neutrinos, right? Janet just gives us an idea of ​​why What are neutrinos quickly and then why would be a good place to look at what are neutrinos? Among the fundamental particles that we have in the standard model. One of the embarrassing problems we have with the Standard Model is that we have too many fundamental particles.

He would like to have his theory. Get fancier and they're among the fundamental particles that we have there and they're really interesting particles because they don't carry an electric charge and as a result they're not as affected by all the different things that are going on around them where they can be affected by electric fields. or magnetic fields or something like that. I'd like to think of them as a very quiet particle and if you're looking for something that's very subtle, it's best to look in a quiet place. And then neutrinos allow you to look for unexpected behavior because they're already doing things that are really, really weird.

That's a question about that. I just hope to understand that the main diagnosis we had on the table to talk about matter versus antimatter was the electrical charge of the particle. If neutrinos have no electrical charge, how do we speak? antimatter and matter So we have neutrinos and we have antineutrinos, we believe because we have particles that decay and the particles that are Matter, the particles that decay into neutrinos produce the neutrino, the antimatter produces the antineutrino. That's what we believe. In fact, it's possible that the neutrino is its own antiparticle, and in fact, this is something that Hoshi has been looking at for a long time, and so, yes, that's why we think that neutrinos could actually save us. of this great annihilation after the great man.

Yes. Is that when the great man made the same amount of matter and antimatter? And you want to convert some antimatter into matter. That's the problem with ducks or surviving, right? But if you want to change antimatter, if it has an electrical charge, there is an advantage: you can convert it into matter. That should have been charged minus or minus two Also, it doesn't happen right, but if it were a neutrino, Neutral has zero charge and can become antineutrino with charge. Co, that's also zero. So neutral is the only product I can imagine that can be classified. of going back and forth between matter and antimatter so that this small symmetry was created between the two, so are neutrinos actually superheroes that saved us from this complete annihilation?

That sounds very attractive, right?So, that certainly motivates us to think about this issue. Now you have been looking at some distinctions between matter and antimatter in the neutrino sector of the world and in a probe that you have been using. something called neutrino oscillation tells us a little about what it is. Well, first of all I should mention that nutrition is a subtle thing, as Janet said, and they are so subtle that there are actually trillions of them going to a body every second through your body. body. In fact. Does anyone feel that? If anyone is feeling it, I recommend you go see a doctor tonight.

So, you know you don't feel them. Well, they're too shy for experimental eyes like Janet. It's incredibly difficult to study them because you can catch them so easily. But fortunately, neutrinos do something truly amazing. First of all, they come in what we call three flavors, so they come with strawberry chocolate and pistachio. Yes, but why is it Newton? describing some space what strawberry chocolate? Do what I have in debate So the thing is that when you have less strawberry neutrinos They go through space and then they start to turn into chocolate and that's what people discovered So can we fast forward it?

Go to animation. Just a question. Because obviously I love analogies. Can you postpone that? Not yet. Just hold that for a second. I think about these neutrinos and the flavors you're using to describe them. In what physical way would they actually do it? potentially differ from each other, so let's say the chocolate flavored neutrino can produce an electron and straw can be a flavor of the neutrino that can put a heavier version of an electron called a muon, so the different flavor of neutrinos When they interact with matter it produces different types of particles. What about the new coaches?

Would they all have the same mass or what's up with that? You know that new stress is something really strange, so they have mass and that's a great discovery. It was awarded the Nobel Prize a couple of years ago, but at the same time they are mixed in a strange way. Yes, if we take a neutrino, it is a mixture of three flavors. It is a very, very strange particle. So if you have one of these in your hand, it could at the same time be a combination, right? That's right, and that's one of the oddities of quantum mechanics: that things can be a kind of mixture of here and there, the mixture spinning back and forth, a mixture of being chocolate and strawberry.

That's how it is. Yes that's fine. So explain to us what you were going to describe. Yes that's how it is. Let's say Homer Simpson orders a strawberry chocolate and is waiting at the counter. Guys, thanks. And then why did they scream? It comes towards him. He begins to turn into chocolate and is now complete with the chocolate and begins to interact with the strawberry. Now, again, the whole strawberry, what he was doing back and forth eventually, they're going to blend together like this. , good? So what you are going to find is the chocolate and strawberry mixture and what experimental state is the one you were looking for? strawberry neutrinos So the detector that was very good at detecting that type of sand but not the chocolate and then they are waiting for the strawberries to arrive.

But when they actually had the nutrients in their hand they were very surprised because they thought that half of them were lost more. And they don't have them lost because half of them, in turn, the chocolate couldn't taste good to them. So the homo was surprised, right? So he complains bitterly about it. And this is called neutrino oscillations, that as the neutrino travels through space, its identity can change between these three possibilities. Well well. Since neutrinos can do that. How would you do it? Determine whether antineutrinos could behave differently because, after all, that is where, after a difference between matter and antimatter nutrients, an antigen is now Jana.

You are doing an experiment, as I understand it is aimed at trying to find that kind of difference. this for those ideas. So the way to do this is to start by running a beam that only has neutrinos and look for neutrinos to do their little dance and change from one type to another and then run the experiment again, but next time. Go ahead and create antineutrinos, so first let me tell you a little bit about how we make a beam and then I'll tell you how you make the difference between this, so think about it.

So you make them like an accelerator, for example, at Fermi. The National Accelerator Laboratory, which is a place you can go and visit if you want, is open to the public and people are welcome to visit. And again, we start with hydrogen and we put a big voltage on it basically like lightning and the protons come out and the protons travel along our Accelerator and we want those protons to go faster and faster. So what we do is we make them surf. They surf on a radio frequency wave, but much like a surfer would in Hawaii, if you catch the bigger and bigger wave, you get more and more energy, you go faster and faster and you get closer to the speed of light. .

Then they go around the ring. They go out, they hit a target, the target when the proton sets the target. There is an explosion of particles that come out and some of those decay into neutrinos. We want to send those neutrinos to a detector. That's too far away. So there's plenty of time for them to do their little dance. So we have to send them through the ground. Actually, that means you have to send your neutrinos underground and they will pass through the earth and appear from an accelerator. That's on the outskirts of Chicago. It will appear in a gold mine in South Dakota.

That's the plan and how it's about a thousand thousand kilometers and during that time the neutrinos will do their little dance and you would start with neutrinos that had a particular flavor and at the end. I hope you see another flavor in your detector. That is if you are going to make a neutrino beam. What you want to do is have all the particles that decay into neutrinos point towards the earth, towards your detector. And so if you look at your bubble camera image again. You realize that matter rotates in one direction. Antimatter spins in the other direction because there is a magnetic field, so if I want to select matter, all I need to do is put up a magnetic field and that sends any antimatter that I create in another direction that doesn't point in that direction. of my detector and then the particles that are going to decay to produce neutrinos then turn off and decay and produce the particles that I would like to look at now if I want to change.

All I have to do is reverse my magnetic field. Now all my matter will shoot in one direction and my antimatter will go towards my detector. A battle will decay on the neutrinos that I'm actually looking for in my detector and the cool thing about this detector is that it's actually the descendant of the bubble chamber. We think of it as a kind of electronic bubble chamber that we're building. It is a state-of-the-art detector and will weigh 40 kilotons. So, it's a very big detector that we have to build. It will be one of the largest detectors of its kind looking at this question once we've built it, but there's actually an experiment going on today in Japan that's working on the same ideas.

And I suggest you all pay attention. a week because we are going to have a big conference called neutrino 2018. It is where we present all our results and we suspect that a great result is going to come out of the group from Japan, although I don't know what it is. secret. Yeah, I don't know what it is. I really do not know. The doors are closed to the audience. So as of today, just for the experimental setting to fix the experiments that you guys have been involved in, has it produced any asymmetry? So there are signs of an asymmetry to come. of this experiment that was carried out in Japan two years ago at the same big conference.

They showed a small difference, so we suspect they will show a larger difference in the next conference. And I think it will not reach the level that we use in science for the discovery of kala. That's why I think we need this. experiment we want to do at Fermilab But does it seem likely that the antineutrino will do this different little dance? Of the neutrino and if that's true, and these kinds of things happened in the early universe. You can actually get matter Antimatter, let me ask you a question about that because, just to be clear, as many people may already know, there have been signatures of an asymmetry between matter and that had been on the table for some time.

Does anyone want to talk about that situation? So the problem with everyone we've seen so far. We have seen evidence of this in what are called quarks. Quarks are what actually form the proton and neutron. They are the other two, another type of fundamental. particle, but they are the effects that we have seen, we have seen differences. But the effects we have seen are too small to explain the level of asymmetry of Matter and antimatter and the theory with that is definitely too small to not be able to be exploited in itself, I agree with that.

So when people discovered this little difference between the behavior of matter and antimatter back in 1964, actually yes. People try to explain this by coming up with all kinds of theories for it. And then there were experiments, one at Stanford, another in Japan. They were in a sort of head-to-head competition for about 10 years and in the end they proved wrong. You can understand why that happened, but the reason it happened was not enough to explain the difference between madinat jumeirah. in the universe at the level of a billionth of a billionth So, is it like that? Miss and Miss by a factor of a billion.

But what I think is really interesting is that our understanding of particles comes from looking at patterns and we see everything. of these different patterns and what we have found is that if you find a pattern in the quark sector like something that is a very small effect and you look with the neutrinos you will find that it is a larger effect. So an example of this has to do with this type of flavor change, and it looks like this may also be related to the difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos. So you are kind of artists and you do the opposite.

I know you can't divulge it and maybe you really don't know, but then, the differences that are hinted at in the neutrino versus the treated antenna, do you think they would be enough to explain the matter/antimatter asymmetry? The connections are a bit. It's complicated, so I can pass those connections on to one of the theorists you want to comment on. Yeah, as we're talking about today, you want to see that matter rabbits and antimatter aunt rabbits behave differently, so that's one thing we need. But another thing we need is for us to start with the same number.

Yes, and convert antimatter into matter, right? That's why there is an imbalance between them and no one has seen that kind of thing: matter turning into antimatter or antimatter tuning into matter. So people are frantically searching for something like that also doing experiments mainly underground. Yeah, and I actually think there's a slide for that, which is mutant double beta decay. Yes, then we can look for a process. This is some super chemistry that you can experience in Japan, but anyway, this is the process where an antineutrino is produced from some radioactivity process and if that antineutral can become a neutrino, that would require it's own anti, TRUE?

That's how it is. That is only possible because the neutrino has no active weight charge, right? Yeah, so you have a process that wouldn't happen otherwise, so people look for this special process where you produce an antineutrino that turns into a neutrino and either interacts with the electron at the end of the day. Yes, and no one has seen it yet because This can't happen even once every 10 to 20 60 years. So it's way beyond the age of the universe, right? That's why no one has seen this, but if you have ten to twenty-seven things like this, maybe it can happen once a year here.

So let's make sure we understand this completely. So the blue things I gather here are protons and the proton itself is undergoing a process. Where is an electron and an antineutrino? Is a neutron being emitted? Yes, that's that nutrient. Sorry, neutrons, yeah, so on the left side it's pretty conventional compared to the right hands. That's how it is. So, on the left side of the story, the neutron turns into a proton and spits out an electron and an antineutrino. Yes, and another neutron does the same. So in the end, the spits are two electrons in two antineutrinos.

Yes, and of course, you don't see neutrinos, but you can tell that something is missing. So, you know, they're actually, neutrinos were produced in this process. But if Antonina can become a neutrino, that's what we hope to see. Yeah, so you know nutrient restructuring goes away from this and all you see is two electrons coming out correctly and looking at the energy balance. You can see that nothing is missing there. It's just two electrons, so you'd say aha. Antineutrinos can actually convert into neutrinos. Look, this is actually a laboratory experiment where you could literally, in a sense, have direct evidence.

That's right, matter becomes antimatter and vice versa. So where is this? Well,again, people looking for this. I mentioned that this is a form of process. There is a machine that is relevant for that. This is the rori. Yes, so this is correct. Now, the experiment that has the best limit for double beta decay of neutrinos, so we haven't seen it. So what happens is we have to set some kind of limit and what it is is that it uses an element called tellurium, which is an element that we think will be a good place to look for the list of lead neutrinos.

Okay, and these are crystals. They are very large crystals that have grown and it is a beautiful experiment so far. Okay, so we know what we need and there are clues like you say and next week. Maybe we will have a new vision of that. Now let's move on to cosmology. These are laboratory experiments happening today that can give us an idea of ​​the difference between matter and antimatter. Yes. How do we take advantage of this? in a theory that begins at the Big Bang and takes us to today. So before we go into cosmology just to comment on these searches for the difference between matter and antimatter, I think we're at the point in the development of Particle Physics when we look at the neutrino sector.

From what we know, these effects seem more likely to occur there. I mean, some people have hinted that it would be surprising if they weren't there, because of the way physics has developed in the last few decades and people had all kinds of ideas about how to produce the matter/antimatter asymmetry in The Universe Has More matter than antimatter. But I think that as we understand more deeply the structure of the theory, the processes that are possible, the most plausible explanation is that it is simply the natural structure in the minimum standard model that will do everything.

It's not what you really like. You have to add a lot of ingredients, all the ingredients are already there and it took a while for people to appreciate it, so you think that ultimately that's where the explanation is that seems most economical and most likely. So I agree with you that neutrinos will have the greatest effect. You probably have this root asymmetry between neutrinos and antineutrinos. What I am not totally convinced is that even if it is proven that in some way it would be proven that neutrinos are responsible for the matter/antimatter asymmetry in the universe and I say this with a heavy sigh because you know that Fermilab is the one who is paying me Well, but the truth is that maybe we will go in that direction later, but there are many mechanisms that we can and we fear have thought of to try to explain what is in this black box that they put there for you and, of course, there are some explanations that are more plausible than others The explanation of neutrinos or the one related to neutrinos I think it's beautiful, it's elegant Most likely it's partially there But I think it's most likely inconclusive, so Although that doesn't mean we have to doing the experiments at Fermi understand the essence of what the properties of neutrinos are because you know, we don't know that the world of neutrinos is so different from what we're used to from the rest of the particles in the standard model that, for example, We do not know if there are more neutrinos than all the nutrients we have seen and that is why we do not know how they really behave.

So even if we put aside the idea that neutrinos and antineutrinos will probably behave a little differently from each other, and still maybe that's not the whole story. We need to learn a lot about what these enigmatic particles do and so in the next decade, here in the United States, we are building with international collaborations the most impressive neutrino experiment and I hope that at least it will. Yes. So I know. I know Neil, you have some very iconic views on what the solution may be. I'd like to get to them in a moment, but Marcella.

Can? Maybe explore some of the work she's been doing to try to fill that black box. Try to complete our understanding of that process that takes us from Matter/antimatter symmetry to asymmetry. What are the ingredients you imagine? Well, then you could say that there are two possibilities. You are under this which is much dearer to my heart. So I'll go second on that. Okay, so the first one has to do with grand unified theories and the idea that maybe we can think, I mean, there are some clues, okay. What is a grand unified theory? I'm going there So that everyone shuts up No, please No, so the idea is that we know that there are three forces, the non-gravitational forces.

You know, it's the electromagnetic force. That means that particles with the same charge repel each other, particles of opposite charge attract each other. We know that they are what we call strong forces, those are the forces that hold the protons together to form the atomic nuclei and they have to be strong because the protons have positive charges, so they repel each other. And then the last one is what we call the weak force and the weak force is what allows radioactive decays, okay, but of course, this means that a proton becomes, for example, a neutron and a positron and a neutrino next to it and Those should be weak because otherwise all the atoms we know will disintegrate.

We need to have mostly stable atoms. So we have these three forces, three or three, it depends. We can move on to another phase. Yes. Yes, and in another movie we can include another movie as a reference. I am not in the United States. Yes, so we think that these three forces may have the possibility of unifying at some early or early epoch in the history of the universe and becoming as we see here in this grand unified theory. So I talked about Roman Electra weak and weak and strong and maybe sometime around the beginning of the use of the universe or after the Big Bang.

They were actually a mega force, a single force and then when the universe cooled, these forces became different and they are what we see today. So, that's a big unified theory. So you're saying that the intensity of the forces actually depends on the distance over which? They are measured to one side and I guess the distance gets smaller that way, so this graph is a section, so at very small distances, which means very high energies, the three non-gravitational forces their forces look like converge and these data exist as this theory. what we're seeing here Well, it depends on how you look at it with the best eye of the beholder, right?

There is some indirect evidence and this is closer to home, I'm trying to be kind. So there is some circumstantial evidence as you would like to say that this can happen and if that is the case we would probably need to have some extended symmetry. of space and time. Let's call it supersymmetry string theory. There's a pretty strong clue that would be if you could see the proton decay. Well then, the proton so far. We've looked for a proton in the case and, in fact, we'll look at this experiment from Fermilab in South Dakota. One option would be the dispute: huge, high-speed detectors will also search not only for neutrinos and antineutrinos that are different, but also for the decay of a proton into some lighter particles and, for example, a positron, and that is like a Pretty generic prediction so far.

Fortunately, perhaps we have not seen the decay of protons and we know that the protons leave behind at least a hundred thousand trillion trillion. years, which is a lot, maybe they belong. So we can set limits like that because we take them from experiments like, for example, The Super-K experiment, the image of Super K was put up just a few minutes ago. And maybe they'll buy one more Super K. And so it's an experiment that has twenty-five kilotons within the active region that people look at and it's full of water. Then you can see people driving around in the little boats while they clean. the light detection devices that are all over the outside and it's filled with water.

I actually did an experiment that was actually filled with oil instead of water. So they didn't allow me to go in a small boat because if you fall, you sink and you get oiled. But this experiment is the experiment that has established the best limits between protons and cages, it gives that number such an enormous life, because there are so many water there you can set excellent limits for that. We have to have a huge detector to be able to do this, so if you have this theory, then what's next? Going back to the Matter/antimatter asymmetry, the proton seems to be stable so far and we are looking for clues on how to do it. to test some theories of desire and struggle, but within these unified theories of gravity because we have this mega force or these united forces.

There are other particles that are behaving a little differently than the ones we know today, right, and these particles could exactly be doing it. Something interesting. So by turning, you know, the blue and orange rabbits on different sides when they go to the box, there's basically two things they can do. They are actually creating an asymmetry between the blue and orange rabbits and they are also capable. of basically going in one direction, so basically once you went one way and you have this asymmetry between the orange and blue rabbits. It's not possible for them to recombine and come back and create this gut-scale universe, so that would be an interesting possibility.

And it's there and of course we've seen that we have theoretical women all together, including Brian, we've worked on a lot of possibilities. grand unified theories behaved differently, for example, if we actually observe proton decay, we will have some information about how these models could be from each other. The downside to this is that it would be a bit difficult to actually have gain, irrefutable proof that this is why the matter/antimatter asymmetry is different. So in my opinion, or at least what I've been working on for the last 20 years, so obviously I like it. I'm sure you've heard of the Higgs boson or the divine particle, correct?

I don't see you, but I'm sure you're all there saying. Yes So the Higgs is mysterious, correct? And let me say in a second sentence one or two about the Higgs. So, there is a Higgs field and a Higgs boson. The Higgs field is an invisible energy field that permeates the entire universe and you would say, okay. It's really not a good thing to convey. But just think about the Earth's magnetic field. That is also an invisible field. Ok, that, of course, only permeates the region around the Earth and is generated by the Earth itself as it rotates around its own axis.

We know that the invisible Higgs, the invisible field of the magnetic field, is there if we just take a compass, right? We will find out with the Higgs. It is an invisible field that generates itself. You don't need anything else. Ok, it's everywhere and the reason we know it is because we know it gives masses to all these particles after we've been talking about quarks. Ok, maybe with the reception of neutrinos I won't go into that. So all the particles that make up all the matter we see today are the basic particles like quarks and electrons.

And they and this prevents them from moving at the speed of light. in order for the universe as we know it today to function, this happens basically 1/10 of a billion second after the Big Bang and this is when we see that these are Higgs bubbles and they start at that time. In the epic of the universe, the Higgs begins to activate. Well, and it gives mass to all these particles that we're talking about, the quarks and the electrons. So here is somewhere where it says Hicks activates, that's there. Okay, so everything we were talking about before was close to the point, man.

So this kind of more recent explanation we have in mind for when the matter/antimatter asymmetry actually starts to appear even though it's 10 to minus 10 seconds too late. the scale Because you know we are Before is the great past. I'm sorry, of course. There are two things why I'm very excited about this possibility, firstly because if you look there it says David Ronn and CERN and Slack and all that. So these are the energies that we are testing today with colliders, which means that if these things happen if we are recreating this instance after the Big Bang at energies or at times that are the times when the Higgs turns on, then we can really explore if this matter antimatter Asymmetry also connected with this idea.

Well, let me make sure I understand completely, so you are saying that there are exotic configurations involving the Higgs field that can somehow ensure a symmetric configuration of matter and antimatter to an asymmetric one afterwards. Yes, and you think that in principle. , this is true. In fact, you could recreate it in Switzerland. In fact, you could learn about the details of the theory. Yes, to prove it or not in the same way that you know, the Higgs boson is the proof that the Higgs mechanism is correct, correct? but we only saw, we can't see the whole mechanism, but we see the background, which means that what we fear is the thought, it is the correct answer in the same way here.

We will measure some properties related to this moment in which theHiggs turns on, maybe at the LHC, maybe at the Large Hadron Collider, maybe in future electron accelerators of the future, but this is surprising because now that we know, the Higgs is turning on right now. The moment these bubbles that we gently light up actually respond very quickly and the entire universe, as we see it today, lights up. Well, and right now, when we're on the edge when this is happening, it's what we think there is. Two things are happening, one is that the Higgs, as we said, speaks differently with matter and antimatter.

Well, and the other is what you're saying, that our process is that, taking advantage of the fact that the Higgs talks differently with matter and antimatter, they come and basically can spin. this asymmetry that the Higgs is able to make into a real net asymmetry of matter antimatter that is here today and these processes told me that they don't say that word but they are called Fatherís is a Greek word that means slippery. It means what slippery, slippery, slippery, slippery process is happening there, another less valid process. That is better. So it is a slippery process and this is a process of freedom.

We need that at the same moment that the Higgs turns on. This is a slippery process that has to be turned off very quickly so that all the symmetry we have created is not erased. And this is what I think might be the most exciting explanation for this issue. Antimatter asymmetry. and you can ask me if it works on the standard model and I can answer: Does it work on the standard model? No. And again, by standard model you're talking about the ingredients that we know exist through the experiment and the equations that we've written to support the actors, but obviously, you know, I wouldn't be so excited if that was the End of the Game. history obviously, okay?

The point is, as you know, because you like super threads, if you like purse threads, you like them, supersymmetry might actually be it. The point is that we hope that maybe there are additional symmetries in nature or maybe additional forces that we call dark forces. because we want to connect them with the idea of ​​dark matter. Well. And so the point is that with the main ingredients that we put there, all these particles and the Higgs, it's not enough. Because what happens is, first of all, the Higgs doesn't have enough difference in the way it communicates with matter. antimatter So we need to have a bigger difference.

Well, and the second point is this? slippery process like I was talking about, they actually spin, they don't turn off fast enough. And the reason we know that is because we have measured that the mass of the Higgs boson is 125 times the mass of the proton. So this deactivation of this slippery process is essential to preserve the asymmetry that we have generated. This is directly related to how much the value of the Higgs mass is and we have done these calculations and we know that the Higgs mass is about three times too heavy or too large.

Sorry to let this happen, but if we have supersymmetry or we have other sectors of the dollar that only speak to us through the Higgs, then it is an incredible possibility that this matter and antimatter asymmetry is a trigger at the same moment in time. that the Higgs turns on. Very early in our universe. So, Nia, when you hear that, I imagine what you said, it's an interesting idea that is certainly yes, but knowing you all these years, you like things to be as strict and minimalist as possible, in a sense, you have the yours. idea.

So you want to give us an idea of ​​where, yeah, I mean, I was also a big fan of these ideas and I think the audience probably got the impression that, having done it properly over the last 30 to 35 years, all the field of theory. Particle physics has been exploring all sorts of avenues, most of which involve adding more so we add more particles. We added more fields. We had more symmetries. We even added more dimensions of space and more objects like ropes and membranes, etc. So we've been putting together all kinds of things under which we haven't seen anything we've seen.

It's been a strange 35 years. Yes, exploration had a very good basis, which is that adding more things worked for a certain period in the history of physics, I mean, people initially started with the electron and then they built colliders and found muons and cities. You know that more and more particles were discovered when you did more experiments. So it was natural to think that adding more wood would somehow still be successful. But the truth is that the last 35 years. It has not been successful. There has not been a single accurate prediction of any natural phenomenon. So from my own point of view, I've been drawn to the idea that maybe we've seen all the particles we'll ever see, so if you could show the next slide, you know a trendy idea that's come up. particle physics and string theory and supersymmetry is that there is a multiverse.

You know, when you start adding more and more things to your theory, you quickly discover that you have so many theories. You're drowning in theories and possibilities and The Multiverse is the ultimate kind of drowning in possibilities. And so I never found it very attractive because if you show the next slide, the observations have consistently gone in exactly the opposite direction when we look out. So here we are at the center of the observable universe, sitting in our solar system and looking out into space. We are also going back in time to the moment of the Big Bang itself.

And when we look outward, we see the large-scale structure of the universe as it was very, very early after the Big Bang and the observations reveal a striking simplicity. You can describe the large-scale structure of the universe essentially with a number that tells you the level of fluctuation that arose from the Big Bang. So as far as we know, the universe is basically the same in all directions. Everywhere in space it was the same and these small fluctuations that can be characterized with a single number because they are the same on all scales with good precision this time.

The single number describes the entire structure of the universe, so it can be said that the universe is simpler. The universe is the simplest thing in the universe. But you know, the large-scale universe is the simplest thing in the universe. They are very paradoxical, by the way, this dark energy that has been mentioned a couple of times plays a very important role in this because the dark energy is making the observable universe finite, so in principle you could imagine that the universe became finite. More and more complicated as you went to large scales and this would continue indefinitely and then the picture of the multiverse is like this, there is an infinite infinitely variable universe, but in fact the observable universe due to dark energy is finite because anything beyond a certain distance is letting ourselves be carried away so quickly by the expansion that we will never see it again.

So all these facts point towards the possibility that we live in an extremely simple universe, which is Brizzy autonomous and Possibility is the only one. What is certain is that this may be the most probable Universe and, by the way, I feel the image of the multiverse that emerged as I said due to this gigantic exploration of possibilities. You miss a point about quantum mechanics, you know, quantum mechanics. Furthermore, the world can go through any number of stories and possibilities but what happens is that a variant, usually one of them, is the most likely, right? That's why the classic picture of the world works occasionally.

You can create interference between these paths and see quantum phenomena, but generally one possibility dominates, so my current perspective is that there is probably one dominant probability and this and this is it. That's the one we live in. If you go to the next slide, what is that? possibility And this relates directly to what you've heard before about matter and antimatter. So if we're talking about the creation of the universe, you know, is there anything in nature that involves creation where something comes out of nothing and matter is antimatter? The best example is that if you turn on an electric field, the electric field attracts an electron in one direction.

Throw the antiparticle in the other direction because they have opposite charge and they joke, so even if you don't have particles, if you turn on an electric field, you will. create a part that if strong enough you will create a pair of particles and antiparticles from nothing again, that is equal to the energy mc-squared and the electric field can create matter and antimatter in exactly equal amounts so on the next slide, that's how We look at this from the outside. Okay, so we're looking at these two particles, two particles that appear as an external observer. We measure this process in time.

We measure it in space and that's what we see, we see these two particles appear by the way, the blue part of the positron or the electron and the red part of the electron, those are classic parts of this process, literally just this particle flying . towards infinity. The gray part is very quantum. The particle that you see, if you think about what is happening at that moment, does not move forward in time. It is traveling through space at a fixed time. Actually, that is not allowed. Classically, it's fine, but it happens. But that's what I want to point out.

That's the quantum part, the gray part, ok, next image. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. Instead of thinking in two particles. Think of one because one of the most profound discoveries that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s was called by physicists Zuckerberg and then Feynman. Was that what a suede is? What is an antielectron? What is an antiparticle? An antielectron has the same charge as an electron. Because it is actually the same particle. The only difference is that it goes back in time, and so this was a very profound beginning. Feynman actually built his entire machinery for particle physics on that idea, and from that point of view, forget about the antiparticle on the left.

Just think about the electron. Imagine I have an electron that goes backwards in the time of the external observer, but forwards in its own time. Which one goes with it? its path Right, then it would have been the antielectron, it went back in time, it went through this quantum region and it emerged as the electron, so that picture is beautiful mathematics, a very precise picture of how a pair of particles and antiparticles is created, actually just a particle. That goes back and forth in time. So that's the closest analogy we have in nature to the formation of a universe, so if we move on.

This is the scenario that we proposed recently, is that the Big Bang was such an Event Where from one point of view let's say we are an external observer. We would say that an anti-universe came out on one side and the universe came out on the other. But that's not really the deepest point of view. The deeper point of view is that everything is one thing and the left side can be considered to go back in time towards the Big Bang, just as the antielectron did, the electron went back in time and the right side is the As The universe moves forward in time.

So in a sense, the universe causes itself. You can mirror this image if you want and it is exactly the same. We couldn't say which of these two we live in. So where would you put the beginning of the universe in this way of thinking? he? There really isn't one. It just is. The important point is that the gray region in that particle image was quantum. It's not classic at that point. It doesn't satisfy our classical notions that there is only one time, for example, so in this image in the middle of the image, that's the blurry part.

That's the quantum part. You shouldn't say, you know, that the universe wasn't started by an external agent at a definite time. No, the fuzzy part is where we don't even know what time is right, so surprisingly you can describe all of this just as you can describe with perfect precision the creation of the electron-positron pair. You can describe this, but you need to use quantum gravity and when you do this, this picture seems capable of producing the matter/antimatter asymmetry in the universe. The U is different from the U bar. But the difference, you know. We see a universe filled with more matter than antimatter because we're looking forward in time, if we were to go back in time, on the other side we would see the exact opposite and if you were living in your antimatter part, yeah, do I younger?

Can't I get my gray hair back yet? Wow. No, no No, you know you don't know. When this is the case, you may think that one causes the other. But actually, when the universe becomes classical, you have to identify the U and the U bar. There is no distinction between them. There really is no distinction. So how would you decide if time is moving? That's the direction in which the universe is getting bigger and which galaxies are forming and you can see it's the same thing. Wherever you are. No no no no. Time exactly the classic parts of this image, you and you BA. identical So you see we're gone And I just want to finish thisFascinating conversation going back to Michael, you know, we've been on two big unified theories.

We've been shooting neutrinos across the surface of the earth, we've been watching Homer and his ice cream cones, etc., but antimatter is actually with us and we use it. Good. I mean, they're actually applications for antimatter. We are still trying to explain this asymmetry and maybe Niels understood it, maybe more and maybe there are other ideas, but we actually used it. Can you give us a specific application? Yes, then everyone's favorite application is, of course, using antimatter fuel for spacecraft. And this is a fact in the distant future. It will happen. There is a beautiful image that was supposed to appear now, actually if I just say the word I don't mean company.

There is no interesting application. I had something more practical in mine. Well, we can. We talked about Star Trek on the way out. But I was actually thinking about more specific things. Of course, the banana example is a very good one. Yes, because you're not going to go where I want you to go, but that's okay because that's actually what happens with PET. Banana automatically emits positrons in humans, you can inject positrons. in a sense antimatter by injecting radioisotopes and then you can accumulate them in the organ of your choice, which is the bladder, but also occasionally in the tumor tissue and observing where these annihilations occur as the antielectrons are produced.

You can actually look inside the body. So it is a very, very useful application. Down to earth, it's not as exciting as I have to say, the cosmological implications. It feels so exciting, right? I mean antimatter. We are actually using a Gnostic zigzag tool and it may be the key to understanding that perhaps our universe is part of a much different and larger picture than we would have anticipated. So let's I'll be waiting next week to hear it. And you know it well, maybe let me finish with the next question. So imagine we come back here in the I don't know.

What are we in 2018? You will be back at the 2025 World Science Festival very quickly. Will we have antimatter matter? Will the asymmetry of the universe be resolved by then or are we onto something? You already know that, so just give us what you think I would say. We can get to the point that, well, neutrinos are actually a plausible explanation for this. We may have discovered by then that the neutrino can become a neutrino. Yes, then can we suffer them? Yes by then. We may have discovered that neutrinos and antineutrinos can change flavors in a different way.

So we can distinguish them, then it's quite plausible, then it's okay. They are the superheroes. Yeah, I have to agree with him and I just want to point out that you know, 25 years ago. We thought that neutrinos were massless and we knew very little about them and now we understand a little more and I think by the time we get to 2025 there is a real possibility that we can understand them as part of antimatter matter. asymmetry But I like to say that they go from zeroes to heroes. I definitely hope we don't see any difference in them because I'll bet a case of champagne that matter and antimatter behave the same way.

I think just five years ago we didn't know the Higgs was activating. Now we are sure that this is the case, and that would be for me to explore what is to come from this large Hadron Collider and there is the plan to increase the energy to double what it has. There are plans in different regions of the world, from China to Europe and many other places to Japan. Where we are trying to think of new tools, new accelerators to study better. Not just the Higgs, but also, for example, we don't know if they are sterile neutrinos and we can even monitor them through the experiments that Janet was talking about or maybe also in different regions of the parameter space by looking at them in the colliders.

The extra neutrinos at that time could also be even more energy. Take a look at your yes. Yeah, I think I really feel that in the next 10 or 20 years we could see a complete revolution in physics. It won't be more of the same. It won't be more, it will probably be less, but a better understanding of one. . I'm not going to take that personally. No, but there is a deeper understanding than what we already know. My suspicion is that when we solve the problem of the Big Bang singularity, which is the ultimate puzzle, and dark energy, which is the equivalent puzzle.

In the future, these other phenomena will be explained as side effects of a broader theory. Well, a fascinating conversation, ladies and gentlemen, please.