That’s one theory to explain baryon asymmetry, but not a given.
It’s also not a particularly attractive theory for reasons the wiki page doesn’t get into, such as how the matter and antimatter could have ended up in different spots in the first place or why the number of photons and baryons in our own universe suggests annihilation rather than separation. In short, if you try to solve the problem through physical separation, you introduce at least as many major problems as you are attempting to solve. Annihilation in the context of CP violation, however, works fine (though for reasons the wiki page doesn’t get into).
As a lay person with no background I hypothesized that it was like a room filled to the top with marbles 1/2 black and 1/2 white randomly mixed together maybe a million times denser than out current universe. Immediately the collisions started taking place destroying say 99% of the marbles. Just random distribution allowed for slightly more in one place than another so it would naturally leave the survivors far apart and likely on opposite sides.
It’s a nice idea, and it was pursued seriously in the 1970s and 80s. The trouble is it just doesn’t fit the observations. It’s unfortunately not enough to say “There would be clumps left over”. What’s the expected distribution of clumps: their spatial separations, their size, and their time evolution? How does galactic structure formation proceed under this scenario, since the very materials that are annihilating need to coalesce to form stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters with the right characteristics? Do the by-products of annihilation make sense in this scenario given what we measure today (photons, baryons, light elements)? Are the cosmic microwave background fluctuations consistent with the scenario? What flux of free-streaming antimatter should we expect to see impinging on our local matter clump?
The model falls on its face for half a dozen reasons, missing the quantitative data by, well, astronomical amounts. People have tried over the past 40 years to make up new physical phenomena to evade some of the experimental constraints, but our suite of data is too diverse and too precise these days for any simple tweak to the physics to get you where you need to be. When you have beautiful cosmological data like this* or this**, the bar for defending a model is a lot higher than “There would be clumps.” This is why the symmetric matter-antimatter idea is overwhelmingly disfavored.
[sub]* cosmic microwave background power spectrum[/sub]
[sub]** large-scale structure survey[/sub]
We needs experts, okay? I acknowledge that but at the same time some experts can be so emerged in their ideas they develop a kind of ‘tunnel vision’ by stubbornly sticking to a particular view even when other approaches might garner better results.
But how do we know whether some of our most cherished scientific models are correct or not? How do we know that by taking an ‘objective’ approach it is going to get us there?
You also need to answer the question as to why some of the world’s most famous and brilliant physicists of the early 20th. century thought that consciousness was a vital component in describing reality. Seems I’m not entirely on my own.
Actually, since most of those fellows you follow from the early 20th century died and you seem to think that science stopped at that point, you are pretty much on your own. Real science progresses as time marches on, and if you decide to stop marching when it gets to a point you are comfortable with, real science will just leave you in the dust. You ask “But how do we know whether some of our most cherished scientific models are correct or not?” Cherished? There is no “cherished” when it comes to scientific models-there is only “most accurate according to current information”, and if new information comes in, that model may change accordingly.
Finding comfort in ideas from a century ago without acknowledging all that has been found since then is not science-it is nostalgia.
Simply we trust our models because they work: they make valid, accurate predictions.
It’s true that at any time any model might be shown to be false, but in the meantime, the more correct predictions a model makes the more confidence we have in it.
Really it’s just a formalization of something humans do naturally. What makes me think punching a boulder will just succeed in hurting my hand? Why am I being so close-minded?
Smart people holding opinions is not science. One of the most important steps in science was moving beyond believing everything the town sage says based just on his/her esteem.
In science no-one is assumed to be right about anything, experimental verification is king.
In terms of the copenhagen interpretation and consciousness, if that’s what you’re alluding to, it’s generally accepted now that you can Occam’s out the idea of an external “observer” plus it’s still just one candidate model among many at this stage.
Virtually every brilliant mind in the early 20th century believed in eugenics and wanted to wipe the race of inferiors, however they were defined. Many people still do, although not quite as publicly. Is that also part of your nostalgia?
There is no field of knowledge in which what people thought a century ago is deeper, smarter, better informed or more correct than what people think today. The answer to why people thought some way a century ago is always “they didn’t know what we now know.” Any other answer is a false premise that will lead you to a crazy or meaningless conclusion.
To the extent that this adds anything, it seems a bit circular.
Obviously the consensus of contemporary science will always be that it’s more accurate than any prior time. This would be true by definition.
It’s possible that in some fields political considerations push science in the direction of incorrect conclusions.
In addition, sometimes “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and an incomplete and partial understanding of a complex matter, which is not recognized as such at the time, can lead to incorrect conclusions. This is particularly striking (at least to this layman) in the case of medicine and nutrition, but it likely has broader application as well.
I think what you are really saying is that the scientific method has asserted itself over the decades by erecting more and more models based on its methodology. The question I am posing is: Does such a methodology entrap itself by insisting that we can start from* here* (i.e. from a materialistic approach) to* there* (i.e. to a theory that can underpin not only physical phenomena but also subjective phenomena?) Does such a methodology include within its rules the role of an observer in experiments? If not, then it can’t possibly explain anything holistically because it parsimoniously eliminates crucial elements of any experimental set-up. When looking at the universe the scientific method intentionally pretends the role of an observer is irrelevant. How can that be? Every bit of data experienced necessarily passes through our filters of perception so what we regard as 'objective, is, in fact ‘subjective.’ The scientific method is a way of erecting a highly human perspective on reality yet it is considered the most unbiased and penetrating way of ‘knowing’ our world. Strange that.
The question is where does all this knowledge come from? The brain you will say. Fine. Logical. Reasonable. However, this is the same brain that says particles can tunnel through solid barriers. The same brain that says faster than light signalling is possible. The same brain that says particles can be in two places at once. The same brain that says there is no meaningful definition of time at the quantum level; that particles can even travel backwards in time! The same brain that says there might be multiple worlds. And so on and so on.
Now, how can a purely phyical brain, designed to operate in the physical world, now operate in the quantum world? There is a serious incongruance here and one that questions the underlying assumption that we always function on the physical, materialistic level.
Question: How can something that is physical understand something that is non-physical?
Answer: It can’t, therefore, there must be a non-physical aspect to the brain.
That non-physical aspect is ideas.
So where do ideas come from? THAT is the question.
I think that what I am really saying are the words visible in my posts, not your interpretation. If you are not responding to what I actually say, then you are talking to yourself.
What is your evidence for this statement of fact?
abashed, I don’t get the point of your posts. It sounds like you’re saying that all human knowledge is subjective to some degree and limited by the inherent limitations of human perception and reasoning ability. OK. Now what? We’re all humans and are going to remain humans, and whatever limitations apply to humans are going to apply to any system involving people trying to figure things out. That’s the best we can do.
You have treat some of these theories with some skepticism because much of physics is mathematically based but it has been shown that even mathematics cannot always be relied on because sometimes it will turn on itself and make a contradiction somewhere along the line. The most we can hope for is to approximate reality by creating simulations of it, but that’s okay because it still works pretty well. 
For example…?
Sure, you are right. But what does this really mean? It’s means we are actually living in a virtual reality. But that’s unavoidable and as long as we acknowledge this and stop proclaiming we can really know much about ‘reality’ then no problem.
You don’t think physics adheres to the scientific method?
