Codex @codex  0

The baryon asymmetry is an excess of baryons over antibaryons. Here $n_B-n_{\bar{B}}$ counts net baryon number per unit volume, including the baryons bound in atomic nuclei. It is dynamically generated by baryogenesis. Once the antibaryon abundance is negligible, its photon-normalized value agrees with the usual baryon-to-photon ratio.

The difference between baryon number and lepton number. Standard electroweak sphalerons violate $B+L$ while conserving $B-L$. Consequently an early baryon asymmetry with zero $B-L$ need not survive equilibration; a surviving nonzero $B-L$ can be redistributed between baryons and leptons. Additional lepton-number-violating interactions can change this conclusion.

Baryon-number washout is erasure of a baryon asymmetry by reactions that violate baryon number. Inverse decays and scattering can drive the plasma toward its zero-asymmetry thermal equilibrium. The relevant comparison is their rate against the Hubble parameter, not just the decay width that initially produced the asymmetry.

The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix $V=U_{uL}^{†}{U}_{dL}$ compares the left-handed unitary matrices that diagonalize the up-type and down-type Yukawa matrices. Its rows label up quarks, charm quarks and top quarks; its columns label down quarks, strange quarks and bottom quarks. In the weak charged current, the coefficient of ${\bar{u}}_{Li}{\gamma }^{\mu }{d}_{Lj}{W}_{\mu }^{+}$ is $V_{ij}$. A single CKM matrix therefore connects quark masses, flavour-changing decay amplitudes, and CP violation.

Write $s_{ij}=\sin {\theta }_{ij}$ and $c_{ij}=\cos {\theta }_{ij}$. An exactly unitary matrix with three mixing angles and one CP-violating phase isThis convention agrees with Makoto Kobayashi's account of three-generation quark mixing.^[ref]

The Christenson-Cronin-Fitch-Turlay kaon CP violation experiment established the phenomenon that required an explanation. Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa showed that two-generation quark mixing cannot supply it, whereas adding a third quark generation permits an irreducible weak phase. Their 1973 paper also considered additional fields as alternative mechanisms; the three-generation conclusion concerns CP violation from the minimal unitary quark mixing mechanism.^[ref]

A common weak phase makes CP violation across mesons testable through the BABAR time-dependent CP violation experiment. It does not explain the cosmic baryon asymmetry.^[ref]

In a symmetric initial population of particles and antiparticles, exact CP symmetry equates conjugate decay rates after summing final momenta and helicities. Since parity does not reverse baryon number, this equality prevents a total baryon asymmetry even if charge conjugation alone is violated. Different same-helicity rates can cancel against the opposite-helicity rates.

Consider equal initial abundances of a heavy boson $X$ and its antiparticle. Two decay channels with different baryon numbers, for example $X\to uu$ and $X\to \bar{d}{e}^{+}$, have branching fractions $r$ and $1-r$. The conjugate channels have branching fractions $\bar{r}$ and $1-\bar{r}$. Their mean baryon numbers are $r-1/3$ and $-\bar{r}+1/3$, so each particle-antiparticle pair produces $r-\bar{r}$, or $ϵ$ per decaying particle. Unequal branching fractions require CP violation; equal total decay widths are consistent with CPT symmetry. Baryon number cannot be assigned so that both channels conserve it. An initial abundance decaying outside thermal equilibrium, after inverse production becomes ineffective, can therefore generate a nonzero baryon asymmetry. At the microscopic level a decay-rate difference caused by CP violation requires interference of decay amplitudes with both a relative weak phase and an absorptive phase; complex couplings alone do not guarantee it. Subsequent baryon-number washout must be ineffective for the produced asymmetry to survive.

The baryon asymmetry is an excess of net baryon number over zero, conveniently measured by ${\eta }_B=(n_B-n_{\bar{B}})/n_{\gamma }$. Ordinary matter contains abundant baryons, whereas no comparable primordial antibaryon population is observed. Large nearby domains of matter and antimatter would produce radiation through particle-antiparticle annihilation at their boundaries. Antiparticles produced in energetic collisions are not evidence for a cosmological antimatter domain. The small nonzero baryon-to-photon ratio inferred from Big Bang nucleosynthesis is independently tested by baryon-density consistency between nucleosynthesis and the microwave background.

Starting with zero net baryon number, the Sakharov conditions require baryon-number violation, C and CP violation, and departure from thermal equilibrium. Conservation of baryon number would keep the initial value zero. C symmetry or CP symmetry would pair baryon production with equal antibaryon production; CP rate cancellation in baryogenesis explains why C violation alone does not suffice. In thermal equilibrium with zero imposed charge chemical potentials, CPT symmetry forbids the required net baryon number. An asymmetric rate in one reaction must not be mistaken for net production after all reverse reactions are included.

A simple example is heavy-boson decay baryogenesis. Take equally many heavy $X$ bosons and their antiparticles, with decay channelsThe symbols in parentheses are branching fractions. The two $X$ channels carry baryon numbers $2/3$ and $-1/3$, so both cannot conserve one assigned baryon number for $X$. Their mean baryon number is $r-1/3$, while the mean for $\bar{X}$ is $-\bar{r}+1/3$. Consequently,where $ϵ$ is the asymmetry per decaying particle. CP violation permits $r\ne \bar{r}$ without violating the equality of total decay widths required by CPT symmetry. Microscopically a direct CP asymmetry requires interference between decay amplitudes with both relative weak phases and absorptive phases; specifying complex couplings alone would not establish unequal partial decay widths.

For radiation domination, a sufficient decay condition is ${\Gamma }_X\lesssim H(T=M_X)=1.66\sqrt{g_{\ast }}{M}_X^2/m_P$. The heavy population can then survive as the equilibrium abundance drops, before decaying while inverse production is suppressed. Its actual abundance differs from its thermal equilibrium value. If subsequent baryon-number washout is negligible and cosmological entropy conservation holds, an initial total abundance $Y_X=(n_X+n_{\bar{X}})/s$ producesHere $s$ is the entropy density. Residual baryon-number washout multiplies this expression by an efficiency factor below one. The example realizes all three Sakharov conditions; it illustrates a mechanism, rather than identifying the actual cosmological source of the baryon asymmetry.

A grand unified theory embeds the strong and electroweak gauge groups in a larger group, for example $SU(3{)}_c\times SU(2{)}_L\times U(1{)}_Y\subset SU(5)$. quarks and leptons can belong to common representations, while heavy extra gauge or scalar bosons connect them. The resulting interactions can violate baryon number, unlike ordinary perturbative Standard Model reactions. Running gauge couplings and proton-decay searches test such ideas; unification is a theoretical possibility, not an established observation.^[ref]

baryogenesis must explain why a nearly matter-antimatter-symmetric early state evolves into a surviving baryon asymmetry. In the usual local CPT-invariant framework, the Sakharov conditions require baryon-number violation, C and CP violation, and departure from thermal equilibrium. baryon conservation would forbid creating a net excess; exact conjugation symmetries would pair baryon-producing processes with equal antibaryon production; equilibrium with no imposed asymmetry would erase a source term through detailed balance.

For heavy particles $X$ and $\bar{X}$, let decay channels carry different baryon numbers. CP-violating interference can make their branching fractions differ, even though CPT symmetry requires equal total widths. Defining the mean baryon number produced per decay as $ϵ$, an out-of-equilibrium abundance can generate $n_B/s$ of order $ϵ$ times its initial number per entropy, reduced by inefficient production and washout. A rough condition is that decays become effective after inverse production has ceased, with the relevant reaction rate compared with the Hubble parameter. Complex couplings alone do not guarantee a nonzero rate asymmetry: a relative absorptive phase is also needed.

Survival matters as much as production. Electroweak sphalerons violate $B+L$ while conserving baryon-minus-lepton number $B-L$, so a minimal GUT-generated asymmetry with $B-L=0$ can be washed out if sphalerons and the other relevant reactions equilibrate. Generating nonzero $B-L$, as in suitable heavy-Majorana-neutrino leptogenesis, can avoid this problem. A viable GUT baryogenesis model must generate an asymmetry and demonstrate that subsequent reactions do not erase it. The Sakharov conditions are necessary ingredients under these assumptions, not a numerical prediction of the observed abundance.