I haven't looked into this for a long time, but the last theory I heard was that the reason the universe has matter at all - that is, it wasn't anihilated by equal amounts of antimatter at the big bang - is that there is a teeny, tiny (sorry for the obscure mathematical jargon) symmetry breaking, I think with the CP symmetry, that left a little "matter" floating around (us).

Is this still the current explanation?

Are there experimental results that show this? (how?)

Any physics folks care to shed some light on this?

No interest? So much for trying to get out of the fucking relativity circuis.

There are speculations about why matter and not antimatter is the norm, but as far as I can determine the "standard model" still provides no clue as to why it is so.

You know, superL, if I am right and the possibilities I am considering in "World of Vacuum" do "work" then there is a simplest explanation "why?'
If I'm right and
-the origin of any mass in Universe indeed is the inflow of Vacuum to provide expansion of Universe and
-due to its superfluid nature Vacuum indeed can not reach the Universe (i. e. the 3D-envelop of 4D-spatial World) otherwise as in the discrete points and
-this interaction of sources of such inflows of Vacuum in Universe just is the gravitational interaction,
then we have the Universe in which the matter is dominated over anti-matter.
Indeed, the quantitative measure of gravitational interaction is the gravitational mass. So, we have to state that inflow of Vacuum creates the gravitational mass of particles (through which Vacuum cans only inflow into Universe!) But, due to Einstein's Principle of equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass we will came to conclusion that inflow of Vacuum into our cosmological expanded Universe creates the inertial mass of all known (massive!) particles.
In other hand, because annihilation of particle and its antiparticle should give pure massless photons, we should conclude that in such our approach antiparticle is drain of Vacuum from Universe.
It immediately leads us to logical conclusion that in Cosmological expended Universe, due to evident deficit of Vacuum - ergo its permanent inflow in Universe, the matter should dramatically dominant over the antimatter!
Let me know if you did not get me...

Yuriy,
Ok. Lets handle this one concept at a time. This statement has three parts that throw me totally off the cart.

"...the origin of any mass in Universe indeed is the inflow of Vacuum to provide expansion of Universe and..."

NOTE: I understand the concept of the energetic vacuum and the constant flux of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, and the quantum vacuum fluctuations which cause the cavity resonance (between two plates spaced correctly) giving rise to the Casimir effect.
Please continue...

1) The inflov of vacuum somehow gives rise to mass?

2) Could you please explain the inflow of vacuum? I understood that the expansion of the universe was of the geometry of space-time itself.

3) Are you saying that vacuum, as an thing by itself, must flow in somehow to, in essence, keep the universe expanding?

Well, SuperL,
Let us start from the beginning.
1. Let our World is 4D-spatial + 1 dimension is time. And this Word is nothing else as pure Vacuum.
2. What we know about Vacuum in our Universe? It is for us Nothing in its ground state. We can "feel" it (not by our sense organs, but due to elementary particles) only due to its fluctuations. But fluctuation is excitation of Vacuum, not its ground state! So, we know that ground state of Vacuum has all quantum numbers zero, all parities +1, has no mass, but may be it has internal energy (and due to existence of its fluctuation we even can be sure that it indeed has this energy!). At such conditions we do not know anything about internal structure of Vacuum. May be it is very mobile thing, may be not; may be it is very tense thing, may be not. We simply DO NOT KNOW.
3. But let's do one assumption - World consist of Vacuum and nothing else! Does it mean that after such assumption we are doomed to have only ... nothing different as the ground state of Vacuum everywhere? No, because at the same assumption we have a lot of possibilities to have a variety of things that differ from dead Nothingness of the ground state of Vacuum, if Vacuum is a very mobile substance that can be easily excited (do not mix it with fluctuated) including self-excited. We will have a World of Vacuum with a huge ensemble of Vacuum's excitations. And that already is Something, because each excitation can have its very peculiar properties; excitations can interact with each other in many ways; excitations can self-create a lot of wonderful structures, etc, etc.
And there comes our next assumption
4. All particles of our Universe are excitations of Vacuum.
Let me stop right here waiting for your response how you - the first human being with whom I develop my experience of non-professional explanation of "The World of Vacuum" - consume these "crazy" ideas...
Tell me, please, did you recognize
a. What topology of our Universe I am proposing?
b. What substance I call Vacuum?
c. What content of World I do propose?
d. What are excitation, fluctuation, and polarization of Vacuum?
e. What origin and nature of particles I propose?
Ask any questions, but before I will go ahead, you should be comfortable with all what already was said…

Count me in as a human being too. I said a while ago, that I would try and read your scientific notes no8, but I really haven't had that much free time to concentrate on slowly reading the text, since it is at some parts very difficult for me to understand. Now if you have chosen to explain your ideas non-professionally, then I am glad to follow it too.
Now about the questions. I know it sounds dumb, but is there an answer to where the vacuum is flowing in from?
And secondly, if anti-matter (positrons, antiprotons, etc) are the points of outflow for the vacuum, then should they have a negative mass? As much as I know, this hasn't been observed.

Very good, fo3.
1. "Where the vacuum is flowing in from?" -let us safe this very important question for further our discussion. We will consider a couple of possibilities, but not right now - it will lead us away from our current development, OK?
2. "If anti-matter (positrons, antiprotons, etc) are the points of outflow for the vacuum, then should they have a negative mass?"
No, there is not such correlation: everything depends on how two outflows interact and how two inflows interact. Moreover, it also depends on how outflow interacts with inflow. It can be the same interaction no matter how flows are directed - in volume or out of it. If all three types of interactions are attractions it will mean that matter and antimatter have the same mass. We will consider these interactions in details later.

Yuriy:
How would conservation of lepton number work in your theory? Are you merely proposing there are exactly equal numbers of leptons and anti-leptons?

Hi, geodesic,
there are your two questions:
Question #1
How would conservation of lepton number work in your theory?
Question #2
Are you merely proposing there are exactly equal numbers of leptons and anti-leptons?

All what I found for today is the spatial-temporat structure of possible candidates for Coulomb quanta, Yukawa quanta (i.e. like pi-mesons), massive vector mesons and photons. I still can not find exact solutions for Dirac's quanta yet. But I'm working on it. When I will find it (I hope!), you will be the first one I will inform and then we will return to your "very simple" questions, OK?
But quastion #2 already was partially answered: according to my first post there should be in Universe absolute dominance of massive (stable!) particles of any kind over their anti-particles (if proposed mechanism of formation of mass works!)

No interest? So much for trying to get out of the fucking relativity circuis.
Such language Superlum, you shopuld be ashamed.

I have a book written by one of the Big Bang Stars Allen Guth "The Inflationary Universe" This happened like this: In a very short time span in the order of 10^-37 sec, or so the universe doubled many orders of magnitude. This model was a confessed contrivance but it worked, for Guth.
This rapid expansion required the forces of gravity to "push" for this expansion period in order to avoid the implications of an over abundance of magnetic monopoles. Now, as we know, gravity basically sucks.

To your question:
Guth and you agree.

The slight over population of matter over anti-matter is the reason we have something left to play with. As long as there was an imbalance at all the continuation of the universe was guaranteed.

Guth citing Stephen Weinberg:

"The dramatic imbalance between matter and anti-matter can be traced back to the tiny imbalance in the early universe. At 10^-6 sec after the BB the universe was so hot (10^13 degees K) that protons and neutrons could not exist, so we would find only the quarks that would combine to form baryons, The number of quarks in the observed universe was much higher then , about 10^87, with the number of anti-quarks almost exactly equal. For every 300,000 000 quarks there were 299,999,999 ant-quarks."

Also discussed later is that from conservastion of baryon number the number of baryons has always been 10^78, why? I dunno.

Conclusion by Weinberg
1,Th underlying physics must contain a fundamental asymmetry between matter and anti-matter,
2. The particle reactions must be slow, compared to expansion and cooling of the universe so that equilibrium densities are not achieved.

NBack to mea;
The rapid expansion was necessary to maintain a uniform temperature distribution over the full extent of the expanding universe, other wise perturbations from the perfectness would not allow the continuation of the BB expansion. The limitation of the speed of light prohibited particles in secton A of the expansion to mix with those in section B and still maintain the uniformity necessary for the production of the observed universe.
Inflationary expansion doubling many orders of magnitude avoided the problem of the horizon issue scuttling the contionuation of the processes. as we see.
Geistkiesel.

I had very simple explanatin about the Big Bang and matter-antimatter problem.

Suppose that at the very beggining of the Universe there had been no particles and no energy, only vacuum. At the first instance of time the Universe begin to expands and this release energy, because the Universe is very small the energy densitry becomes enormous and the first and most simple particles - gravitons had emerged. However 2 gravitons can't be distingushed by anything except their momentum p, that is one half from the gravitons are moving in one direction and the other half in the opposite direction. Then this process had continue for the charged particles, since theirs initial direction is determined by theirs charged, the electrons had moved in one direction and positrons in another. After that the electro-magnetic forces had overcome, and anti-protons was expelled from the half of electrons. Also I think that the two halfs of particles had had opposites angular momentums M.

I dont know how realistic is that explanation but is a good try I think.

SL and others,

Obviously I am one that believes alternative thinking is good and should be part of our discussions here.

However, what I find disturbing and infact downright atrocious is Yuriy's historical rhetoric regarding my posts, even when I am not advocating some alternative idea, about "Never give a poster an alternative view unless he asks for it" and "Alternative views must be clearly identified as such when posted".

Yuriy has here entered into the realm of his own personal Vacuum Theory which is not mainstream science, is completely unfounded and is mathematically unsupported nor tested and he is advocating the view as a first response without identifying it as alternative thinking.

Damnit, he is not in some special superior postion to do this vs any other poster.

Knock it off Yuriy. You are a biased hypocrit.

First, Yuriy:
I'm afraid I can't handle this much detail regarding Vacuum Theory and am in no position to understand it at any deep level. If you can state it using analogy and very little math, that would be nice.

MacM:
I sympathize with you. We should all quit bashing each other so much (although it is fun sometimes...;) ). However, from what I read, Yuriy is speaking of the well known mechanism of quantum vacuum fluctuations and proposing an extension to, or addition to, our currently feeble knowlege of why matter is here at all.

Crank vs Anticrank:
I can only filter information through my own BS detector. It is limited, but I am very, very wary of any theory that claims to show that any foundational theory of modern science is blatantly flawed. I have no real way to prove or disprove, on my own, SRT, UniKEF, EQTP or any other advanced theories of the universe. So I must rely on professionals and the test of time.

I am going to do my best to stay out of this kind of debate from now on.

Speaking for myself, I am never going to be a physicist, and I only hope to have the best qualitative understanding of current physics that I can. I've already gotten some better insights into certain things just by reading posts here and being forced to research my own statements more deeply.

Peace.

Good post SuperL.....a very reasonable position to take I feel.

MacM:
I sympathize with you. We should all quit bashing each other so much (although it is fun sometimes...;) ). Peace.

Fair enough. No offense taken or meant. Just defending my good name.