New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

What Happened to All of the Universe’s Antimatter?

Differences between matter and antimatter could help explain why the cosmos mostly lacks the latter today, researchers say

Large Hadron Collider Beauty (LHCb) experiment at CERN.

CERN

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

We could have been living in an antimatter universe, but we are not. Antimatter is matter’s upside-down twin—every matter particle has a matching antimatter version with the opposite charge. Physicists think the cosmos started out with just as much antimatter as matter, but most of the former got wiped out. Now they may be one step closer to knowing why.

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider Beauty (LHCb) experiment at CERN near Geneva have discovered antimatter and matter versions of “charm” quarks—one of six types, or flavors, of a class of elementary matter particles—acting differently from one another. In a new study, which was presented in March at the “Rencontres de Moriond” particle physics conference in La Thuile, Italy, the physicists found that unstable particles called D0 mesons (which contain charm quarks) decayed into more stable particles at a slightly different rate than their antimatter counterparts. Such differences could help explain how an asymmetry arose between matter and antimatter after the big bang, resulting in a universe composed mostly of matter.

Matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact, and researchers believe such collisions destroyed almost all of the antimatter (and a large chunk of the matter) that initially existed in the cosmos. But they do not understand why a relatively small excess of matter survived to become the stars and planets and the rest of the cosmos. Consequently, physicists have been looking for a kind of matter that behaves so differently from its antimatter version that it would have had time to generate this excess in the early universe.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The newly discovered mismatch in decay rates between charm quarks and antiquarks turns out to be too small to account for the universe’s excess of matter. The result, however, “does bring us closer to finding the answer because it shows one of the possible answers may not be the right one,” says theoretical physicist Yuval Grossman of Cornell University, who was not involved in the new work. “I am also excited because it’s the first time we’ve ever seen this [phenomenon in charm quarks].”

Physicists previously found similar variations in two other quark flavors, but those were also too tiny to account for our matter-dominated universe. Scientists are holding out hope of finding much larger matter-antimatter differences elsewhere, such as in ghostly particles called neutrinos or reactions involving the Higgs boson—the particle that gives others mass—says LHCb team member Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University: “There are lots of different searches going on.”

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz
Scientific American Magazine Vol 321 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Lucky Charms” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 321 No. 1 (), p. 19
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0719-19

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe