antimatter problem solving

>point of big bang
brainlet confirmed
there is no "point of big bang"
everywhere was the "point of big bang"
the "big bang" was a uniform expansion of all space, from dense plasma to the vacuum it is today.
no such thing as a 'point of big bang', no such thing as a center, or an edge

Where's the award for this man?

>>8535979
Is there anti dark matter?

>>8535979
I think in your calculation you have too much matter.

Gravity would cause it to collapse back in on itself.

>>8535979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

>Another possible explanation of baryon asymmetry is that matter and antimatter are essentially separated into different, widely separated regions of the universe. From a distance, antimatter atoms are indistinguishable from matter atoms, both produce light (photons) in the same way. But along the boundary between matter and antimatter regions, annihilation (and the subsequent production of gamma radiation) would occur. How easy such a boundary would be to detect would depend on its distance and the density of matter and antimatter. Such boundaries, if they exist, would likely lie in deep intergalactic space. The density of matter in intergalactic space is reasonably well established at about one atom per cubic meter. Assuming this is a typical density near a boundary, the gamma ray luminosity of the boundary interaction zone can be calculated. No such zones have been detected, but 30 years of research have placed boundaries on how far they might be. On the basis of such analyses, it is now deemed unlikely that any region within the observable universe is dominated by antimatter.

so no

>>8535979
if the big bang was an acctual explosion, you picture makes sense but its an expansion, so there is no 'point of big bang' this is like high school (or middle school) astronomy

when the universe expanded the distribution of anti-matter and matter whoudlnt change. the only thing is that the universe became less dense and and cooler


TL:DR OP is retarteded and only knows pop sci about big bang (if he even does that)

File: eJxVyUsOhCAMANC7cACotqJ4GYPVoPEDgRoWZu4-s53ly3vVk081qk0kldGYZS8c86KLxOzDqkOM4Vx92ovmeBkv4nm71luKaRuHiC0N0DlsAAYwbUdE6JzFX_VoXW_kueYzT0W87Dz9yx6U5GE7O6oHMNeh1gBQj8kS6HQH9fkCzFE1Ng.-VQQINaBhDfgMXFY6PLhYyhf_E8.png (199KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 640x360px

>>8535979
What the fuck is this?
Do you think the universe's light cone in 4 dimensional space time is the "shape" of the actual universe in 3-D space?
Holy shit haha
Stay in school

Modern cosmology is the most retarded collection of ad-hoc arguments. So many problems with it yet the big bang is the still considered the best theory.

>>8536735
>most retarded collection of ad-hoc arguments
and yet the whole thing is self consistent and supports each other, to within experimental error

>>8536003
Where is the center of gravity for the universe?

File: 1476435913846.gif (822KB, 600x366px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 600x366px

>>8536317

> it is now deemed unlikely that any region within the observable universe is dominated by antimatter.

In the picture i drew the observable universe as a small circle in a huge cloud of regular matter, thats what i'm saying, the regions dominated by antimmater could just be incredibly far away beyond our observable universe
>>8536580

> the only thing is that the universe became less dense and and cooler

It was the densest and the hottest thing possible in this reality since it was ALL matter moving very fast in very little space, saying that a sudden stretch of space wouldn't effect the distribution is retarded since before the stretch happened it was too hot to form anything. If thats the way you picture the primordial soup you are mistaken