Neutrino Asymmetry Passes Critical Threshold (opens in new tab)

It's a bit of a subtle point but Majorana anti-neutrinos are still right handed chiral particle and a Majorana neutrino is still a left handed particle. So any particle-antiparticle effects from Delta-CP (or anything else) just becomes a left-right chirality effect. That behavior is built right into the term "Delta-CP", CP stands for charge-parity, meaning it's related to both a charge flip (particle to anti-particle) or a parity flip (left to right).

This isn't a full explanation but I'd have to go find some old text-books in order to provide a better one. Here's also a blog post that kinda sorta addresses the same point https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/06/19/helicity-chirality...

The known, light neutrinos would be Dirac, their massive counterparts Majorana:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism

Well it’s tricky, see. Normal science might try to solve a paradox logically, but maybe this is the universe solving a paradox by multiplying both sides of the equation by a reciprocal paradox? The different properties of the anti-particle result in a remainder which is where all of the something rather than nothing comes from.

Not a physicist but I can answer this.

Antineutrinos have opposite lepton number compared to neutrinos. Lepton number is preserved by all particle reactions[1] so for example beta decay must produce an antineutrino (L=-1) in addition to an electron (L=1).

Antineutrons also exist. Neutrons are composed of three quarks, uud (u has charge 1/3 and d had charge -2/3), while antineutrons are composed of two up antiquarks (charge -1/3) and one down antiquark (charge 2/3). And as in the case of neutrinos, neutrons have baryonic number 1 like protons and antineutrons have baryonic number -1 like antiproton a. Hence, for example, a beta decay will always turn a neutron into a proton and an antineutron into an antiproton (though the latter is theoretical).

[1] More precisely there is a lepton number for each generation (electron/muon/tau) and all three are separately preserved.

Imagine that the relation between a particle and it's antiparticle is an abstract relation, and one of the easy to explain consequences is that they have the oposite charge. (Other consequence is that they have the same mass, but it's less interesting.)

There is an anti-neutron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron I'm not sure of the details, but it should be easy to produce an antineutron beam, if you have the right equipment (perhaps like a particle acelerator worth a few million dollars :) ) Some random paper http://www.ph.unito.it/ccl/docenti/menichetti/CIVR/bressani.... take a look at section 2.

This will blow your mind then:

A Majorana fermion (/maɪəˈrɑːnə ˈfɛərmiːɒn/[1]), also referred to as a Majorana particle, is a fermion that is its own antiparticle. They were hypothesized by Ettore Majorana in 1937. The term is sometimes used in opposition to a Dirac fermion, which describes fermions that are not their own antiparticles., from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion

Neutrinos do have a charge, just not electric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Weak_isospin_...

Am I the only one who finds megastructures like this surreal? It’s not agoraphobia per se, but sometimes when I behold things like this tank or especially when I gaze upwards at a skyscraper, I get this sense that of not-rightness that it exists and that I’m so close to it to be looking at it from this angle. Vertigo maybe? It happens even in pictures so I’m sure it’s something about my mind thinking something is amiss somehow but I don’t know why. I actually am quite fascinated with megastructures like these but have a hard time appreciating them sometimes while grappling with the extrasensory overload that viewing them can induce.

That's not an idea, it's what some of the math in the standard model looks like.

The fact that we are here tells us there are fundamental differences between matter and anti matter, otherwise the big bang would have created exactly equal amounts that would have annihilated.

CP asymmetry is an observational fact, measured also bei LHC.

I agree. “Why” implies or presupposes such reason or reasons exists. “How” is more about context, explicability, understanding, justification, verification, and proofs. That’s just my reasoning anyway.

It’s a matter of the “why’s” of ontology versus the “how’s” of deontology.