Astronomy

On the horizon for this year are Ann Leckie's latest, Neil Jordan's debut and more from Adrian Tchaikovsky. Exciting times, says our sci-fi columnist Emily H. Wilson

Clear out your shelves for a bumper new crop of books by authors including Naomi Klein, Rebecca Solnit and Xand Van Tulleken, says culture editor Alison Flood

In the latest in our imagined history of inventions yet to come, Future Chronicles columnist Rowan Hooper reveals how by the 2030s, botanists had worked out how to grow hybridised superplants to help feed the world

In the latest in our imagined history of inventions yet to come, Future Chronicles columnist Rowan Hooper reveals how by the 2030s, botanists had worked out how to grow hybridised superplants to help feed the world

Health officials have agreed to assess pending medical research grants after a Trump administration antidiversity purge put them on ice

Cacio e pepe pasta and boiled eggs were the subjects of meticulous studies aiming to help cooks achieve perfection, but the reimagined recipes weren't always well-received

Cacio e pepe pasta and boiled eggs were the subjects of meticulous studies aiming to help cooks achieve perfection, but the reimagined recipes weren't always well-received

NASA’s new boss Jared Isaacman hinted that he could break with Texas lawmakers’ push to move iconic space shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to Houston

Astronomers have discovered a bridge of gas and dust between two protostars, the signature of a close encounter 15,000 years ago.

The post Passing Baby Stars Lock Arms in Rare Astronomical Find appeared first on Sky & Telescope.

The warm and fuzzy emotion of kama muta underlies vital feel-good experiences like social connection and feeling part of something bigger. But are you getting enough of it?

The warm and fuzzy emotion of kama muta underlies vital feel-good experiences like social connection and feeling part of something bigger. But are you getting enough of it?

A soldier returned from the Sahara desert in 1916 with a wild story about a meteorite that dwarfed all others. Over 100 years of hunting yielded nothing – but now twin brothers think they have solved the puzzle

A soldier returned from the Sahara desert in 1916 with a wild story about a meteorite that dwarfed all others. Over 100 years of hunting yielded nothing – but now twin brothers think they have solved the puzzle

With a storage capacity of 36 petabytes, a DNA-based cassette tape can hold every song every recorded, and it could be on the market within five years

With a storage capacity of 36 petabytes, a DNA-based cassette tape can hold every song every recorded, and it could be on the market within five years

In 2026, the European Union will start charging a carbon-emissions-based tax on imported goods such as steel, cement and fertilisers – and countries including the UK are likely to follow

In 2026, the European Union will start charging a carbon-emissions-based tax on imported goods such as steel, cement and fertilisers – and countries including the UK are likely to follow

Researchers have been trying to look at interstellar object 3I/ATLAS from every conceivable angle. That includes very unconventional ones. Recently, while 3I/ATLAS passed out of view of the Earth, it moved into a great vantage point for one of our interplanetary probes. Europa Clipper, whose main mission is to explore Jupiter’s active moon, turned its gaze during its six year journey back towards the center of the solar system and observed 3I/ATLAS as it was reaching its perihelion, and out of sight from the Earth.

Shortly after the big bang there were almost exactly the same amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe, but there was just enough of a difference that we live in a matter-dominated Universe. But it didn’t have to be that way! Explaining this mystery has been one of the great mysteries in astronomy, and today we’ll see if there’s been any progress! Why is the Universe the way it is? Specifically, why is it made mostly of matter? This is the question we’ll look at today!

Show Notes

• Why Does Anything Exist? Matter, Antimatter, and the Asymmetric Universe
• The Early Universe
• Symmetry, Violations, and Fundamental Physics
• New Ideas and Radical Theories
• Dark Matter Connections
• How Science Moves Forward
• Matter–antimatter asymmetry as a key to understand the existence of universe
• Future experiments

Transcript

Fraser Cain: 

Astronomy Cast, Episode 776 The Matter-Antimatter Dichotomy. Welcome to Astronomy Cast, our weekly, facts-based journey through the Cosmos, where we help you understand not only what we know, but how we know what we know. I’m Fraser Cain, I’m the publisher of Universe Today.

With me, as always, is Dr. Pamela Gay, a senior scientist for the Planetary Science Institute and the Director of Cosmoquest. Hello, Pamela. How are you doing?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

I am doing well enough.

Fraser Cain: 

Enough. Well enough. Yes.

So, I want to talk about something that is very important, and I think a lot of people are very ashamed to admit it to us, and I think this is a safe space. And that is, it’s okay for you to fall asleep to our Delta Tones.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

It’s true. It’s true. We are aware that you do this.

And honestly, it’s a compliment to know that you’re taking us into such a vulnerable spot where we could potentially give you nightmares, and apparently we don’t.

Fraser Cain: 

And that somehow the back and forth between the two of us somehow does not wake you up suddenly when I get into some kind of excited rant, and that’s good. And this is one of those great cycle of life kind of things, where I think we use other people’s audio and video to put ourselves to sleep, and I think this is just one of the great discoveries of the modern internet age, is that you can play audio, it puts you to sleep. How wonderful is that?

And I think, you know, what I consider when you’ve got all of these modern options right now where you can go onto YouTube and you can let an AI read you some kind of sleepy time AI slop. Do not do it. Or you can pick the genuine conversations between two human beings who’ve been doing this for 18 years.

We respect and appreciate the fact that you choose to spend your time going to sleep with us.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

I have one correction, however. It’s been 19 years, my friend.

Fraser Cain: 

Whatever. 19 years. You’re such a stickler for the amount of time.

I no longer care. Time isn’t weaning. So yeah, use our material, fall asleep.

Don’t even listen to whole episodes. You have no shame. We appreciate your business, and by that I mean you listening to us.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

See, and I’m required to know how many years this has been because we started two weeks after I got married. And if I forget how long I’ve been married, there are consequences. Therefore, I know how long we’ve been doing this episode.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah. See, so my kid, my eldest, is exactly 30 years younger than me.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Oh, that’s convenient.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah, exactly. So I’m always to just, I just add 30 or subtract 30, and there will be age. Yep.

Shortly after the Big Bang, there were almost exactly the same amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe, but there was just enough of a difference that we live in a matter-dominated Universe. But it didn’t have to be that way. Explaining this mystery has been one of the great mysteries in astronomy, and today, we’ll see if there’s been any progress.

So how do we even know that there was matter and antimatter in the early Universe shortly after the Big Bang?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

It’s theory. I have to admit. So the assumption is we know that when things like particle accelerators generate vast amounts of localized energy through collisions that you get both matter and antimatter coming out of that energy.

So the story goes that the Universe came into existence as pure energy, and then that energy divided into matter and antimatter in theoretically equal amounts, and thus the Universe evolved.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. And so, sorry, let me just put a, like, I’m going to, we’re going to go through this very slowly and carefully. So when we have a particle accelerator, and we are slamming particles together at enormous velocities that turns into energy, that energy freezes out particles, and what we see in our particle accelerators is this distribution between matter and antimatter.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Mostly. Mostly. So this is where this whole episode is going to have lots of caveats on it, and that’s where the science is.

The science is in the caveats. So there was some recent research looking at the Large Hadron Collider’s results of lambda particles, and they found that they aren’t actually entirely in equal amounts of particles and antiparticles, which was exciting, because to first order, when you look, they appear to be like you do one or two experiments, and you don’t really see any differences. It’s over the accumulation of data over long periods of time, over lots and lots of, this is why we keep slamming things together, particle accelerators, lots and lots of experiments, they’re starting to see at greater than the three sigma level, not quite to the six sigma level, they’re seeing this asymmetry in matter and antimatter with more matter particles being created.

Fraser Cain: 

That’s exciting.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yes.

Fraser Cain: 

We’ll come back around. But before some of these new experiments with the Large Hadron Collider, originally it was like you either accelerate particles, slam them together, generate energy, energy freezes into particles, particles are balanced between matter and antimatter, boom, or early universe, we are simulating essentially the conditions of the early universe, and so we would get this state where you’d be getting, once things had cooled down, you get matter, antimatter.

Okay.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And a whole lot of physics depends on this being true. So like the idea of how black holes evaporate is predicated on the idea that energy becomes a particle and an antiparticle. All this stuff is like, it’s just what we breathe.

Fraser Cain: 

So then we get all of this, the temperature of the universe cools down, these particles freeze out, you get the particles, the antiparticles, but then they annihilate. Right. And what did that cause?

That annihilation of all of this matter, all this antimatter, did that just get you back to the energy again? Like what happened?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So it got us to the cosmic microwave background being created. All of the light from the cosmic microwave background came out of this annihilation. And for reasons that make no sense.

Fraser Cain: 

Well, hold on a second though. I mean, the cosmic microwave background radiation is the result of all of the protons turning into helium infusion, like the core of the star, and then it cools down and it’s like the surface of the star. And then finally you get to this place of last scattering.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So the majority of the light is actually from the matter, antimatter.

Fraser Cain: 

Whoa.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah. Yeah. So yes, there is light from when the universe was the inside of a star, sort of.

But also the particle antiparticle, there was a whole lot more of that going on earlier in time.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. Yeah. But like in the first like millionth of a second after the universe, right?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah. But those photons are still going to be there getting absorbed and re-emitted and absorbed and re-emitted.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. They’re random walking in the way that we see that random walk inside a star. Okay.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah. And it starts out as gamma radiation. You know, matter, antimatter gives you gamma radiation and then it’s got to make its way out of the system.

Okay. Understood. Okay.

But like a lot of people ask this question, like did it help drive the expansion in the universe? Like what role, apart from superheating everything, I guess, did this annihilation play in the evolution of the universe?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

It depends on which papers you read, but for the most part, it was a universe that was so energetic that it’s just like one more part of the soup at that point.

Fraser Cain: 

Right.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Got it. So we have what should have been, according to early theories, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have annihilated and created a universe of pure energy that would then turn into equal amounts of antimatter and matter that would cure. And you get stuck in a cycle of you don’t get us, but there’s somehow us.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. I mean, you could still get the expansion and so you would have the energy and the energy would be starting to get farther apart from each other, but it would always be sort of perfectly balanced. It would be a dramatically different universe than the one we experience.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So somehow, the matter that we are did not get annihilated.

Fraser Cain: 

Okay.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

All right. And this gets us to the initial question.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. So before we get into the explanation that we’re sort of moving towards, there’s one additional possibility that I want to just sort of take off the table. And that is that, in fact, there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, they just weren’t evenly distributed.

Right. Could we look out into the universe and see galaxies and so on where they’re all made of antimatter? And in fact, everything is perfectly balanced.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So that was one of the early explanations for this. Now, the problem is you have our island of matter universe, you have this other island of antimatter universe, and they could be multiple islands. But between the two of them is going to be the place where matter and antimatter are encountering one another.

And that place should be creating a wall of gamma rays.

Fraser Cain: 

Right.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And we don’t see that. So within our ability to look out across the universe for whatever fraction in the universe we see, everything appears to be matter-dominated, and it is now generally accepted that we live in a matter-dominated universe and not in a universe with galaxies made of both matter and antimatter that are separated.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. So if that distribution is over the cosmic horizon, not our problem. Exactly.

But we do see examples of places where antimatter is being generated. There seems to be an excess of gamma radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way. But it’s not very much.

And so even where there’s even just like slight amounts of antimatter being generated by, who knows, tons of pulsars that are acting like particle accelerators and they’re producing antimatter, it’s finding its way to matter. It’s producing gamma radiation. We see this excess.

It is subtle. It’s there. If there was whole galaxies of matter and antimatter – Not subtle.

Not subtle. It would just be the universe would be screaming at us that there’s antimatter and matter colliding over here. Take a look at me.

So no. By every measurement that we see, this universe is made of matter and, you know, and then all of the other stuff. It is definitely not equal amounts of matter, antimatter.

Okay. So hopefully everyone was like, oh, that was the one I was thinking of. Okay.

So we, so now we go back and we say, why, why do we have more matter than antimatter?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So the next big theory that people chased down was this, this idea that maybe there isn’t the parity we think there is. Maybe there isn’t the charge symmetry we think there is. Maybe time isn’t symmetric the way we think it is.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah. You just hit CPT violation. We’re going to have to break that down a bit.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah. Yeah. So, so the idea is that when, when you take a particle, it has charge, it has parity, and it moves through time.

And ideally every bit of physics that you see that is happening for, for a matter particle should happen in the opposite time direction for the antimatter particle. And, and so everything should be symmetric for all physics interactions.

Fraser Cain: 

Right.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So beta decay, anti-beta decay, the, this, think of the way neutrons decide, I shall become a proton and an electron now. All these reactions that, that are creating positrons and electrons, these all should have symmetries in them. Right.

But, but it was noticed in, in the, I believe it was in the sixties that there are with, with mesons reactions, these, these are particles that are a quirk and an anti-quirk, there, there are reactions that are actually asymmetric. There are reactions that don’t show the, the CP, it’s CP violations is the way they called it. So charge and parity seem to have moments only involving the weak force.

So electrostatic, fine, strong, fine. Weak force, nope, not going to do it.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah. Which is kind of fascinating, right? That you, you know, you take a bunch of particles, you take a, a dock, you, you, you flip the charge on every single particle in the dock.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

You’ve now made yourself an antimatter dock.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. Don’t do this. Don’t do this.

Meet, meet, meet a regular dog, you get annihilation. But, but the point is, is that the antimatter dog is going to behave exactly like the regular matter dog, just that everything is going to be, you know, that, that you’re going to get the same outcome because you’re going to get this, this symmetry. And that, but they found that when you have the charge and the parity, the antimatter dog does not behave like the matter dog in these really subtle ways, but only for the weak force.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And, and this leads to a small amount of more matter.

Fraser Cain: 

Oh, there’s a hint.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So, so then.

Fraser Cain: 

So, so sort of like, sorry, I just got to believe this point. You take dog, you let it decay, I guess you take an anti-dog, you let it decay. Okay.

I shouldn’t be using, I should be using radioactive elements.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

No, we’re not going to decay them.

Fraser Cain: 

You take, you take a little bit of radioactive element, you let it decay. You take a little bit of, of anti-radioactive element, you let it decay and, you know, both sort of run by the weak force and they, you don’t get the version and the anti-version. You get a slight difference with this hinting that, okay, maybe there are these forces that are involved in this somehow, something to do with this sort of asymmetry when you, when you, when you flip everything over.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So, so the question became, does normal baryonic matter that is made of trios of quarks have, have the same CP violation and decades pass, generations pass until finally enough data was, was accumulated by the Large Hadron Collider’s instruments looking at, at baryonic particles that they were able to go, yes, occasionally there is at the five sigma level, which is enough to say it is real. We are seeing baryons, but the problem is they’re seeing them, but the violation isn’t enough to explain the universe we’re in. We have, we have too much matter for this violation.

So, so while yes, CP violation is real, yes, we can start to understand how, how there’s more matter than antimatter. This is not a complete solution.

Fraser Cain: 

Okay. So now that does not solve the whole problem.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

No, no. And, and this brings us to a fairly new theory. This is not something I learned in grad school.

It is something that actually came out of the Perimeter Institute fairly recently by, have you interviewed him? Do you know how to actually say his last name? Niall Turok?

Turok?

Fraser Cain: 

Niall Turok?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Niall Turok.

Fraser Cain: 

I would say, I would say Turok. Have I interviewed Niall Turok? I have not interviewed Niall Turok.

You should. You should.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

I want you to.

Fraser Cain: 

Okay. Yeah. He’s one of those maverick thinkers.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

Tons of crazy ideas coming out of, out of him. Yeah. I have not.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

That are science-based and make predictions. So.

Fraser Cain: 

Yes. Uh, yes, but also are seen skeptically by large amounts of the particle physics community, which is fine, you know?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And that is okay.

Fraser Cain: 

Like this is the way it’s supposed to be done.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

If it’s disprovable, it’s still science.

Fraser Cain: 

Yes. Yeah. As long as you don’t hold onto it after it’s been disproved.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yes.

Fraser Cain: 

There, there is that part too. Yeah. Let it go when it’s been disproved.

I’m not saying that, that, that Turok isn’t doing this. I’m just saying like, in general, there are people who are making statements that are disprovable and yet when they’re disproved, they’re not releasing the idea. They are continuing to hold onto it and it’s switched from science to marketing, to self-promotion, just saying, just laying that out there, not naming any names, not pointing any fingers.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And they do not work for the Perimeter Institute.

Fraser Cain: 

No, they do not. We are not casting any aspersions.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

No.

Fraser Cain: 

We are casting a wide net. Yes. A general how-to, as it, as it were.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So, so Turok, uh, there’s, there’s this really cool suite of papers that have come out that look at the idea. Well, what if the way to look at CPT violation is…

Fraser Cain: 

You’ve got to choose the charge. You’ve got to include the parody and you’ve got to include the time.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

What if the universe at the moment of its creation sent matter in one direction and anti-matter in the other direction through time?

Fraser Cain: 

Whoa.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah. So, so now you have one side that’s matter dominated, another side that’s anti-matter dominated. The way this works out, it actually doesn’t require inflation.

It explains dark matters being, uh, a, a plethora of sterile neutrinos being required. It works out gracefully, except it’s, it’s so novel and weird that there’s a whole lot of people going, no, no.

Fraser Cain: 

And hard to detect.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And hard to detect. It does, it does make predictions about sterile neutrinos. Um, it also makes, uh, there should be a neutrino with no mass.

Um, right.

Fraser Cain: 

And so, so this is one example. And so like the point here is, is that, is that if you go all the way to charge parody and time, you flip them all. Yeah.

That you theoretically get that violation. That you get more matter in one direction and more anti-matter in the other other direction. While the sort of expectation is no.

If you, if you take the universe and you flip all the charges and you flip all the parody and you flip all the, the time and you run the universe backwards with that you would not be able to tell.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. That you can run a universe backwards, all the charges reverse, all the parodies reverse, you know, up quarks become down quarks, down quarks become up quarks, uh, positive becomes negative. You look at that universe and then you’re like, I can’t tell the difference.

Everything is perfect. And in fact, what you’re saying is maybe there’s like a little difference.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And it’s super uncomfortable to think that out of the moment of creation, you get two universes that are one universe, but matter anti-matter time for time backwards, parody swaps. And, and because chaos theory is a thing, this doesn’t mean that there’s an anti astronomy cast that is a 13.8 billion years in the before times, um, before Big Bang, so BBB, um, it, it is to say that there were matter and anti-matter created and then chaos theory and everything else allowed perturbations to exist between the two. It’s just cool.

And it’s also not perfect, right? So we have all these different concepts. None of them are complete solutions.

And I, I am of the thinking that someday, just like with dark matter, it’s, it’s a multiple solution. Perhaps with this, it’s going to be a multiple solution of CP, CP violations.

Fraser Cain: 

And, and we’re looking for the, and, and you are like, just describing a theory that was presented by one researcher, three researchers. He was, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

I reported about three weeks ago and Dr. Brian Koberlein wrote this up on universe today. Another theory that proposes that in fact, sort of early on in the universe, there were these kind of knots in space-time called a soliton field and that the sort of, while the particles themselves all behave, they were the way they were expected, these soliton fields, uh, sort of were the source of neutrinos, either axions or sterile neutrinos. And that those would, would sort of get in there and mess up the, the matter antimatter sort of side and, and, and they would only be matter.

And so you would get, yeah. And so you would get not only an explanation for dark matter, but you’d also get an explanation for the matter antimatter symmetry problem. And, and that again, like the math, but how do you observe it?

And so I think, you know, like we sat down and really researched, we could probably come up with dozens, if not hundreds of papers that are proposing novel ideas for how to explain this. And, and I think that makes it really exciting. There is this field where everybody acknowledges that this is a problem and everybody sort of is mapping out the parameters of what the solution has got to look like.

And then it’s up to the creativity of the individual researchers, the ingenuity of the people who are making the science experiments to actually perform observations, and this is how science works.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And, and what I’m really appreciating about this is there’s a chance that they’re going to come up with something that has a single solution to explain dark matter, why it’s a majority matter universe, the expansion of the universe, and potentially inflation or lack thereof, all in one, still not grand unified theory, but one particle physics set of theories.

Fraser Cain: 

I mean, that would be delightful, but come on.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

I can’t hope, a girl can’t hope.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. You know, it’s going to be this horrible mishmash, inelegant collection of things that slowly, when you do the math, they all add up together to provide the explanation, but it’s a nightmare and, you know, and nobody deeply understands it and that’s just the universe is messier than we expected.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

And, and that is excellent too. And, and this is where, so, so I don’t know if you have one of these, but I have this Patreon Yeti mug that is my favorite thing and it says creativity over everything and like that describes science as well as art and, and this concept that you have to be massively, I’m not creative enough to be a particle physicist. It’s just that simple.

I am designed to be a photometrist. I have a good degree of creativity, not enough to be a particle physicist. And, and this, this is just the universe we live in and this is why we science.

We don’t understand everything. And so we keep exploring on the pursuit of it.

Fraser Cain: 

Yeah. Like, you know, that feeling when you’re trying to solve a math equation and like there’s an answer in the back of the book and yet, and yet it’s not just a simple like punch in the numbers. Like it’s literally like prove this mathematical theorem.

And we did this a bit in, in my computer science mathematics class in linear algebra and we did some, some math proofs and it’s next level. Like normally you’re like factored this polynomial and you’re like, no problem. And then you’re like, prove this theorem.

And you’re like, eh, where do I even start?

Dr. Pamela Gay:

I loved that part.

Fraser Cain: 

Can I disprove it? Yes. Okay, great.

Done.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Yeah.

Fraser Cain: 

Right. No, I can’t. Okay. So how do I, and so like things like, like there are other people who prove one plus one equals two and that, that there is this whole class of mathematics equations which are, which are literally unproven and it’s just this, I can’t even imagine.

My brain would nope out so hard trying to just blank, clean slate, solve a mathematical problem like this. And you’d, and you have these creative ideas. You’re like, oh, maybe I do this.

And then you spend the next three years of your life filling up one piece of paper with equations. You’re like, nope, that didn’t work. No, that just sounds like hell to me.

But yeah, but there are people out there who love it.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

So I, I particle physics, like kinematics, physics, that kind of like relativity. I’m down with all of that.

Fraser Cain: 

Um, but just blue sky, no pure math. No, no, no. But mad respect.

Thanks, Pamela.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Thank you, Fraser. And thank you so much to all the patrons out there who allow us to put the show together week after week. This show is made possible by our community on patreon.com slash astronomycast. This week, we’d like to thank the following $10 and up patrons, Alan Gross, Andrew Allen, Antisor, Aster Setz, Benjamin Carrier, Bob Krell, Brian Breed, Buzz Parsec, Conrad Howling, Daniel Schechter, David Green, Dr. Whoa, Ed, Fairchild, just as it sounds. Frederick Salvo, Jeff McDonald, Gold, Gregory Singleton, J Alex Anderson, Jason Kwong, Jeremy Kerwin, J O, John Herman, Jordan Turner, Kate Sindretto, Kim Barron, Lab Rat Matt, Les Howard, Mark, Masa Herleu, MHW1961, Super Symmetrical, Michael Regan, Naila, Noah Albertson, Paul Esposito, Peter, Red Bar Is Watching, Robert Plasma, Sachi Takeba, Scone, Sergey Manalov, Steven Rutley, TC Starboy, Thomas Gazzetta, Travis C. Porco, Vitaly, William Andrews.

Thank you all so very much.

Fraser Cain: 

Thanks everyone. And we will see you next week.

Dr. Pamela Gay:

Bye bye everyone.

Live Show

A neuroscientist explains how highly processed foods may be key to “food addiction.” She also reveals some solutions