O'Banion 1

James O'Banion
Mrs. Paige
2nd hour
English 3A
11/21/13
Why Do We Exist?
Since the beginning of human history, we have questioned our existence. Generally, were
curious as to how and why we exist. Over the last few thousands of years, the majority of widely
accepted suggestions regarding this issue have had religious implications. While all of these hypotheses
have yet to be proven or disproven and most show no hope of being proven or disproven in the future,
many modern minds have proposed new and scientifically based hypotheses that can be argued (and
proven, in some cases) with evidence. Most of these newer possible solutions concern themselves with
physics to some extent, and our existence has become one of the primary issues in the field of physics.
Among these new solutions of physics to the enormous question mark that is our existence, one
of the newestwith much of its supporting evidence coming from just the past few yearsand most
popular is the possibility that neutrinos, extremely small particles of neutral charge produced by certain
types of radioactive decay, and their corresponding antiparticles, antineutrinos, have different rates of
decay. This may seem like a very subtle and practically meaningless piece of information, but such a
small detail of the physical world may completely determine why anything in our universe exists today.
Based on the relative current status of research, it is almost entirely unlikely that neutrinos
and antineutrinos are similar in mass. Therefore, it is highly possible that neutrinos caused the excess
matter in our universe that allowed its celestial processes to occur. The difference between these
particles' decay rates is so important because matter, a common characteristic of particles, and
antimatter, a common characteristic of antiparticles, annihilate each other upon physical interaction. If

O'Banion 2
all particles and their corresponding antiparticles had similar decay rates, they all would have destroyed
each other during the Big Bang, leaving our universe without any form of mass. Since our universe
does observably has mass, antineutrinos may have faster decay rates than neutrinos, which caused there
to be enough neutrinos at the beginning of our universe to annihilate most antineutrinos as well as
allow remaining neutrinos, and therefore matter, to exist.
For a particle to decay, it must have mass to begin with. Therefore, it is impractical to go about
looking for a difference in the decay rates of neutrinos and antineutrinos unless it is first established
that they have mass to decay. According to an article by the Borexino Princeton group, "If neutrinos
were all massless (or for that matter, if they all exactly the same mass), it would be impossible for
a given type of neutrino to become a different type (for instance, for an electron neutrino to become
a muon neutrino)" (Princeton 2). Since been observed that neutrinos do indeed have multiple
types, it is difficult to argue the possibility that neutrinosand therefore antineutrinoshave mass.
Skepticism regarding neutrino mass remains, however, and must be taken into unbiased
consideration. The Borexino Princeton group continues on to state that, although evidence of
neutrino/antineutrino mass is quite compelling, the various flavors (types) of neutrinos don't have
well-defined masses. Also, neutrino/antineutrino mass has never been observed directly (Princeton 12)
Attempting to confirm that neutrinos and antineutrinos have different decay rates has proven
even more difficult than confirming that they have mass. One experiment, however, has produced,
using highly accurate methods of mathematical prediction, results of differing neutrino/antineutrino
decay rates. As published by ScienceDaily, "Scientists of the MINOS experiment at the Department of
Energy's Fermi National Accelerator laboratory hove announced the worlds most precise
measurement to date of the parameters that govern antineutrino oscillations, the back-and-forth
transformations of antineutrinos from one type to another. This result provides information about the
difference in mass between different antineutrino types. The measurement showed an unexpected

O'Banion 3
variance in the values for neutrinos and antineutrinos. This mass difference parameter, called m2
("delta m squared"), is smaller by approximately 40 percent for neutrinos than for antineutrinos"
ScienceDaily 1).
Of course, due to a lack of observable confirmation, neutrinos and antineutrinos may not have
different rates of decay. ScienceDaily further explains that the unexpected variance in
neutrino/antineutrino mass is still uncertain. Without sufficient data and analysis, there is still a five
percent probability that m2 is still the same for neutrinos and antineutrinos (ScienceDaily 3).
Despite much ongoing dispute among the scientific community, it is now generally assumed,
due to precise and convincing evidence, that neutrinos and antineutrinos have mass as well as
different rates of decay. If this is confirmed to be the case, then we will be one step closer to
discovering the origins of our existence. It would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of
science.

O'Banion 4
Works Cited
McCarty, Kevin. "Neutrino Mass" Neutrino Mass. N.p., 2007. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
"Neutrinos and Antineutrinos Differ in Key Property, Experiment Suggests." ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily, 15 June 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.