The Big Bang: Are We Missing Crucial Pieces?

In the last three blog posts I have discussed some of the details still being investigated about the big bang and subsequent development of the universe and our solar system. Some of these issues are used by young earth creationists who claim the universe is only a few thousand years old in an attempt to discredit the big bang. I have addressed (1) poor strategies used to cast doubt on certain scientific discoveries, (2) issues with the formation of our solar system, and (3) fine tuning observations that are addressed by cosmic inflation. These particular subjects were brought up by a reader of this blog who asked about them and directed me to a few videos by young earth creationists. The list of questions asked by this reader have all been answered except for two: what about the missing antimatter, and what about the missing population III stars? Let's try to determine whether these are truly missing and, if so, what does their absence say about our understanding of the origin of the universe.

Should We Be Here?

Why are we here? That question could be answered from many perspectives including philosophical, theological, and scientific. From a scientific perspective we are here partly because the early universe had an excess of matter over antimatter. If the amount of matter and antimatter had been identical, their interactions would have annihilated both, resulting in a universe with energy but no matter, so we would not be here. Physicists have been investigating why there is excess matter in the universe, and in particular, if there is a discernible difference between matter and antimatter. When a recent very precise measurement at CERN found no difference in a certain property of matter and antimatter, the headlines across the globe, such as in Cosmos, Space.com, and The New York Post, proclaimed "The Universe Shouldn't Exist."