>>12012147I get that you're trying to make my argument seem ridiculous but that's exactly what we've been thinking.
>the fact that matter exists and not antimatter means more matter existed than notcorrect, at some point in the timeline of the universe there was more matter than antimatter. we don't know when that was though.
>our theories say this is not trueno, our theories say that there is no mechanism that could've produced matter over antimatter in the quantities observed today.
>therefore there was not more matter than antimattercorrect, this is what we would predict based on our observed theories
>therefore there is no matterthis is what should be the case. it obviously isn't. why is that?
this is exciting because it's such a glaring issue with modern physics but it's so simple. why are we here? why does matter exist in the first place? because we can't answer this question with current theories, we know we have to either extend or rework the standard model.
