Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After the big bang occurred what biased the formation of particles over anti-particles? Why are particles more common than anti-particles?

share|improve this question
up vote 14 down vote accepted

Currently, there's no single explanation for this.

The simplest explanation is that there isn't any imbalance — there are large antimatter bodies in the universe; just separated from us. However, these would have to be pretty far away (otherwise the boundary annihilation would be detectable). Theoretically, this requires antimatter to have clumped early on, which is rather unlikely/impossible.

A far more likely explanation is that charge-parity symmetry is violated. In other words, flipping the charges and parities in a reaction may not lead to the same dynamics — the outcome (when the charge/parity is flipped back) or distributions of outcomes may not be the same. Usually, we expect that if we flip the charges on both sides of a reaction, the reaction proceeds in the same manner (with same probabilities, etc). There is evidence that suggests that this may not be true. If this is indeed the case, then the matter-antimatter imbalance is not that hard to explain.

share|improve this answer
Could you add those experiments which say that these anti-matter clumps would have to be "far away"? I think that part of your answer is confused. Anti-matter existed in near equal amounts at the beginning of the universe (an asymmetry of 1 part in a billion on the side of matter seemed to have existed), how is it at all possible that anti-matter evolved gravitationally to produce anti-matter stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters without ever being exposed to regular matter? I call "no way" on this. – astromax Sep 29 '13 at 12:58
@astromax I think I misspoke when I said experiments (I'll have to look it up, but it's probably theoretical "Without ever being exposed" -- no, it could be exposed, just that if the distribution was right then this exposure might lead to annihilation at a boundary and subsequent clumping. It's unlikely. Very unlikely. And it can't be completely justified by our current framework of physics; but neither can the CP violation way (though hypotheses explaining that are more developed) – Manishearth Sep 29 '13 at 13:07

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.