Antimatter in the universe and Milky Way

A.D. Dolgov

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Antimatter in the universe and Milky Way

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Primordial antimatter in the Milky Way is predicted and found.

desk verdict A transparent but overreaching review that restates the author's earlier antimatter prediction and treats candidate observations as confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10311 v1 pith:G2QO3O7T submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.GA

A.D. Dolgov This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords primordialantimatterMilkyWayantistarsbaryonisocurvaturefluctuations511keVannihilationlinecosmic-rayantiheliumblackholes

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the Milky Way hosts a substantial population of primordial antimatter, not just trace by-products of cosmic-ray collisions. The argument unites a theoretical mechanism—dense bubbles of matter and antimatter formed during inflation—with three lines of observation: the 511 keV positron-annihilation line from the Galactic bulge, antihelium nuclei recorded by AMS-02, and antistar candidates identified in gamma-ray surveys. The paper presents these as different faces of a single early-universe process, the same one that produces primordial black holes with a log-normal mass spectrum. If the interpretation holds, these observations do not break the standard cosmological picture; they were predicted by it, through the same mechanism that also yields primordial black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a complex scalar field χ carrying baryon number, whose potential contains flat directions—valleys along which the field can grow without costing energy—and which is coupled to the inflaton by U = g|χ|^2(Φ − Φ1)^2. When the inflaton crosses the special value Φ1, with about 30–40 e-foldings of inflation still to come, the effective mass of χ vanishes along a flat direction, so quantum diffusion can drive χ to large values and create astronomically large but cosmologically small bubbles with a baryon-to-photon ratio of order one. Baryonic charge is the angular momentum of the field's phase, and a CP-violating relative phase between the quartic and quadratic terms makes some bubbles antibaryonic. After the early-universe quark-hadron transition, the dense bubbles can collapse into primordial black holes or, at lower masses, into compact stellar-like objects—including antistars that survive annihilation while submerged in ordinary baryonic matter; inside these non-expanding objects nucleosynthesis stops at high temperature, which is invoked to explain the observed near-unity ratios of anti-deuterium and anti-helium-3 to anti-helium-4.

What would settle it

Measure the anti-deuterium to anti-helium ratio in cosmic rays with the next AMS-02 data release. The model predicts ratios of order unity from nucleosynthesis inside non-expanding compact antistars, whereas secondary cosmic-ray production predicts orders of magnitude more anti-deuterium than anti-helium; a measured ratio far below unity would falsify the primordial-antistar interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that antimatter in the Milky Way is primordial: a significant population of compact antistars, together with the positrons and antihelium nuclei they produce, was created in the early universe rather than by secondary cosmic-ray reactions. The paper concludes flatly that antimatter in our backyard is predicted and found. The mechanism that generates this antimatter is the same baryon-isocurvature process that makes primordial black holes with a log-normal mass distribution peaking near 10–30 solar masses, so the observed black-hole merger spectrum, the 511 keV line, the AMS-02 antihelium events, and the antistar candidates are offered as one connected body of evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction stands on a narrowly timed opening in the early universe—a window that must open at just the right moment while space is inflating—and on the assumption that the dense antimatter clumps formed in that window survive annihilation when surrounded by ordinary matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 511 keV annihilation line from the Galactic bulge is the annihilation of positrons from primordial antimatter, not mainly from pulsars or other known astrophysical sources.
The AMS-02 antihelium events are produced by Galactic antistars, which would also emit narrow X-ray lines (for example, a 1.73 keV line from antiprotonic atoms) detectable by upcoming X-ray spectrometers.
The antistar candidates in the gamma-ray catalog are genuine compact antimatter objects, existing at an abundance consistent with current gamma-ray and microlensing bounds.
Primordial black holes from the same mechanism have a log-normal mass spectrum peaking near 10–30 solar masses, matching the mass distribution of black-hole mergers observed by gravitational-wave detectors, and the mechanism is also invoked to resolve early-galaxy puzzles from deep surveys.
No separate exotic explanation is needed for the positron excess, the antihelium anomalies, and the antistar candidates; one early-universe mechanism accounts for all three.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the antistar population is real, future high-resolution X-ray spectrometers should detect the predicted narrow lines (such as 1.73 keV and 4.86 keV) from antistars in the Galactic disk; a null detection would suggest the antimatter is spread through diffuse clouds rather than concentrated in compact stars.
The model makes a sharp abundance prediction: anti-deuterium and anti-helium-3 should appear at ratios of order unity relative to anti-helium-4 in future AMS-02 data, whereas cosmic-ray spallation predicts far smaller ratios.
If the same isocurvature mechanism forms both primordial black holes and antistars, an improved census of black-hole merger masses from gravitational-wave detectors could indirectly bound the Galactic antimatter abundance.
A confirmed primordial antistar population would overturn the standard assumption that galaxies are purely baryonic, with consequences for the interpretation of diffuse gamma-ray backgrounds and for models of galaxy formation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this is Dolgov's review of the DS/DKK mechanism, arguing that primordial antimatter in the Milky Way is both predicted and observed. There is no new derivation, fit, or dataset in it. Every load-bearing element comes from earlier papers, mostly his own. What the paper actually is: an opinionated status report, and on the surface an honest one.

Give credit where due. Dolgov flags his own weak spots rather than hiding them. He calls the inflaton coupling 'invented', discloses the fine-tuning, concedes there is 'no commonly accepted point of view' on the 511 keV line, labels the AMS antihelium as a 'possible observation', and calls the Fermi sources 'candidates'. He also states plainly that standard anti-BBN gives a D/He ratio in 'huge contrast' to what AMS sees, and he proposes a speculative workaround—nucleosynthesis in 'non-expanding compact stellar-like objects'—instead of pretending the standard calculation works. That is more transparent than most speculative cosmology.

But the central claim outruns the evidence. The abstract and conclusion say 'predicted and found'. On the model side, the survival of antistars in a baryonic background is asserted without a calculation; the question mark in '(compact?) antistars' is doing real work. The D/He fix is a hand-wave with no nuclear network behind it. On the data side, the 511 keV bulge has conventional stellar and pulsar explanations, the antihelium sample is a handful of events, and the Fermi antistars are gamma sources with no identified counterpart, not confirmed antistars. The GRB line 'possibly emerging from star-antistar annihilation!?' is a speculation, not evidence. The PBH mass confirmation is also softer than presented: M0=17 Msun follows from choosing mu/T about 0.3, and an alternative LVK fit in ref [25] gets M0 about 30 Msun. The paper mentions both but then declares the prediction 'confirmed'.

There is also a duplicated paragraph in Section V.B—the anti-BBN block appears twice verbatim. Minor, but an editor would notice.

Bottom line: this deserves to be in the literature as a clearly labeled speculative review, but not as a research claim of confirmation. If I were refereeing, I would reject the 'found' language and ask for either a quantitative survival calculation or an explicit retreat to 'a possible interpretation'. As is, I'd point readers to the original DS/DKK papers and the observational papers, not to this review. I would still take the paper to a reading group, because it is a good case study in how candidate detections get converted into confirmation.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the baryon isocurvature mechanism of Dolgov-Silk and Dolgov-Kawasaki-Kevlishvili, implemented through an Affleck-Dine field coupled to the inflaton, produces high-baryon-density bubbles during inflation; these bubbles can evolve into primordial black holes (PBHs) and, when the baryonic chemical potential is negative, into compact antistars that survive in the Galaxy. The author claims that this prediction is observationally confirmed by the 511 keV positron annihilation line, the AMS-02 antihelium and antideuterium candidate events, the Fermi-LAT antistar candidates, and the MeV emission line of GRB 221009A, concluding that “antimatter in our backyard is predicted and found.” The paper also argues that the PBH log-normal mass spectrum, with central mass around 17 solar masses, matches the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA inferred black-hole mass distribution.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would indicate a substantial primordial antimatter population in the Milky Way and would have broad implications for early-universe baryogenesis, dark matter, and Galactic cosmic-ray physics. The paper does provide a compact summary of a speculative but falsifiable scenario: the log-normal PBH mass spectrum and the predicted X-ray lines from antistar atmospheres are concrete, testable signatures. However, the confirmation chain as presented is not load-bearing. The model relies on a fine-tuned, explicitly “invented” coupling, the survival of antistars is asserted rather than computed, the anti-deuterium to anti-helium ratio is “resolved” by an unquantified claim about non-expanding compact objects, and all the cited observational evidence consists of candidate detections with alternative explanations. The paper is therefore an interesting speculative summary, but it does not deliver the confirmation promised in the abstract and conclusion.

major comments (4)

[Section IV.B, Eq. (4.6)] The bubble-formation mechanism depends on the coupling U = g|χ|^2(Φ − Φ1)^2, which the text itself calls “invented,” and admits that the “only fine tuning” is that the inflaton reaches Φ ≈ Φ1 with 30–40 e-foldings remaining. No calculation is presented here showing that this tuned window yields the claimed population of high-baryon bubbles with the required size and density, and, crucially, no quantitative computation is given for the survival of compact antistars submerged in the baryonic background. The conclusion asserts this survival step in a bullet point with a parenthetical question mark, which does not constitute support for the central claim.
[Section V.B, anti-D/anti-He ratio] The observed ratio of anti-deuterium to anti-helium, of order unity, is explicitly acknowledged to be in “huge contrast” with standard anti-BBN predictions. The resolution proposed is that primordial element formation takes place inside “non-expanding compact stellar-like objects with practically fixed temperature” and that “this so-called BBN may stop with almost equal abundances of D and He.” This is an assertion, not a computation: no nuclear reaction network, no temperature or density range, no timescale, and no resulting abundance prediction are provided. Since the AMS-02 antinuclei are a central piece of observational evidence, this unquantified step is load-bearing and currently unsupported.
[Sections V.A and V.C] The observational evidence is presented as “confirming,” but each datum is candidate-level or admits standard alternatives. For the 511 keV line, the text states there is “no commonly accepted point of view” on its origin and merely adds that primordial positrons are “one more possibility.” For antistars, the cited catalog consists of candidates “not associated with any objects belonging to established gamma-ray source classes,” which is a selection of unidentified sources, not a detection of antistars. The GRB 221009A MeV line is connected to star–antistar annihilation only through the phrase “possibly emerging from star-antistar annihilation!?” These hedges do not support the conclusion that antimatter is “found.”
[Section IV.A, M0 = 17 M⊙ claim] The text states that lattice calculations for quark chemical potential μ/T ≈ 0.3 give M0 = 17 M⊙, “exactly the value” obtained by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA best fit. However, reference [23] is a holographic-model paper on heavy-quark anisotropy, not a lattice QCD calculation of the QCD transition at finite baryon chemical potential, and no explanation is given for how its results translate into μ/T ≈ 0.3 and M0 = 17 M⊙. The asserted exact agreement with the LVK fit is therefore not supported by the cited literature as presented.

minor comments (4)

[Section V.B] The paragraph beginning “According to the works [16, 17], antinuclei should be primordial” appears twice verbatim in Section V.B; one copy should be removed.
[Section V.B] The notation “He/He ∼ 10−9” should be clarified as the ratio of anti-helium to helium, i.e., ̄He/He, to avoid ambiguity.
[Abstract] The abstract says “Observational data confirming this ‘crazy’ prediction are presented,” but the body consistently uses hedged language such as “possible,” “candidates,” and “possibly.” The abstract should match the actual strength of the evidence.
[General] There are several typographical issues, including “rquired” at the start of the Introduction and “siﬃenntly” in Section IV.B; the manuscript should be carefully proofread.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'found' claim rests on self-cited ansatz plus retro-tuned M0 and D/He inputs; partial circularity.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV.A, after Eq. (4.1)]
"As shown by the lattice calculations [23] for quark chemical potential µ/T ≈ 0.3, M0 = 17 M⊙. This is exactly the value obtained by the best fit to the data on gravitational waves registered by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, performed in the work [24]."

M0 is the peak of the predicted log-normal PBH spectrum (4.1). The paper does not derive µ/T ≈ 0.3 from the model; it imports that value and immediately notes that it gives M0 = 17 M⊙, 'exactly' the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA best fit of [24]. Since M0 is controlled by the input µ/T and the text supplies no independent fix of µ/T, the agreement is a matching of an input to the target fit rather than a parameter-free prediction.
self definitional [Section V.B, 'Anti-evidence: cosmic antinuclei']
"in a huge contrast to the observed ratio of anti-deuterium to anti-helium which is of order unity. The same problem exists for the ratio of He3 to He4, that is also of order unity instead of the standard ∼ 3 × 10−5. ... On the other hand in our scenario formation of primordial elements takes place inside non-expanding compact stellar-like objects with practically fixed temperature. If the temperature is sufficiently high, this so called BBN may stop with almost equal abundances of D and He."

The datum to be explained is the observed D/He ratio of order unity. The 'scenario' introduces a fixed temperature, but no temperature value or abundance calculation is given; the only stated condition is that the temperature be 'sufficiently high' for BBN to stop at 'almost equal abundances.' Thus the model's output (D/He ≈ 1) is defined by the observed ratio it is supposed to predict. The claimed agreement is inserted by construction.

1 more flagged steps

self citation load bearing [Section IV.B, Eq. (4.6)]
"In refs. [16, 17] the following coupling of the Affleck-Dine field χ to inflaton Φ is proposed: U = g|χ|2(Φ − Φ1)2 + λ|χ|4 ln( |χ|2 σ2 ) + λ(χ4 + h.c.) + (m2χ2 + h.c.). The first term describing the coupling of χ to inflation Φ is 'invented' in our works [16, 17] for creation bubbles with a large baryonic number density during relatively short time at inflationary stage."

The prediction that the Galaxy contains primordial antimatter bubbles is not re-derived in this paper; it is imported from [16,17], both authored by Dolgov. The text itself labels the crucial Φ−Φ1 coupling 'invented' in those works. The later conclusion 'Antimatter in our backyard is predicted and found' therefore rests on a load-bearing self-citation to an explicitly invented ansatz, not on an independent derivation.

full rationale

The central claim 'Antimatter in our backyard is predicted and found' is partially circular. The antimatter prediction is imported from the author's own prior papers [16,17], and the crucial coupling is explicitly called 'invented' there. Within the present paper, the M0 prediction of the log-normal PBH spectrum is made to coincide with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA best fit by adopting µ/T ≈ 0.3, with no derivation of that value. Similarly, the observed D/He ratio of order unity is not computed from the model; the paper posits a fixed-temperature BBN whose only stated requirement is that it 'may stop with almost equal abundances,' so the target ratio is put in by hand. These are genuine cases where the 'prediction' reduces to an input chosen to match the data. At the same time, the 511 keV line, AMS antihelium events, and Fermi antistar candidates are external observations and are not themselves constructed from the model, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Hence a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model carries several adjustable ingredients: the inflaton-window coupling is admitted to be invented and fine-tuned, the bubble baryon-to-photon ratio is taken to be of order unity, the QCD chemical potential µ/T is chosen to make M0 = 17 M⊙, and the anti-D/anti-He ratio problem is handled by an uncalculated fixed-temperature BBN. The observational side is candidacy-level, not a closed prediction.

free parameters (6)

Inflaton window value Φ1 = unspecified
Eq. (4.6) opens the flat-direction window only when Φ is near Φ1; the paper calls this the only fine tuning and requires Φ1 to be crossed with 30-40 e-foldings left. Bubble abundance and antimatter fraction depend on it.
Baryon-to-photon ratio β in bubbles = of order unity
The mechanism needs β ≈ 1 inside the bubbles to seed PBHs and antistars. The value is not derived from independent constraints.
Quark chemical potential µ/T = ≈0.3 (from lattice ref [23])
Sets the QCD phase transition temperature and hence M0 = 17 M⊙. The paper gives no independent reason this value is physical rather than chosen to match the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA fit.
Log-normal width γ = ≈10 (from ref [25] fit to LVK)
Appears in the PBH mass spectrum Eq. (4.1) and is taken from a fit to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA chirp masses, not derived.
Central PBH mass M0 = 17 M⊙ (via µ/T ≈ 0.3)
Presented as a prediction from the horizon mass at the QCD transition, but depends on the chemical potential choice and coincides with the fit in ref [24].
Affleck-Dine potential parameters g, λ, m, α, σ = unspecified
The potential (4.6) requires these couplings, but no numerical values or constraints are given, so the duration of the window and bubble properties remain adjustable.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Supersymmetric Affleck-Dine field χ with baryonic charge and flat directions exists.
The whole mechanism relies on flat directions of SUSY potentials (Eqs. 4.2-4.3) and B-violating dynamics; SUSY is not established.
ad hoc to paper Inflation happened and the inflaton reaches the special value Φ1 with 30-40 e-foldings remaining.
Admitted as the only fine tuning in the model; controls whether rare high-baryon bubbles are created.
domain assumption Quantum fluctuations of complex χ along flat directions grow as ⟨χ²⟩ ~ 8ρ t/(3H) during inflation.
Taken from Starobinsky, Linde, and Vilenkin-Ford references and from the author's ref [30]; standard stochastic inflation applied to a complex charged field.
ad hoc to paper High-baryon bubbles survive until the QCD transition and become PBHs or compact antistars.
No quantitative survival calculation is given; the conclusions say antistars 'could survive annihilation' but do not show how.
ad hoc to paper Non-expanding compact stellar-like objects can host BBN at fixed temperature and stop with equal D and He abundances.
Invoked in Section V.B to resolve the anti-D/anti-He ratio problem; no calculation or prior reference is supplied.

invented entities (3)

Primordial antimatter bubbles and compact antistars independent evidence
purpose: Explain the 511 keV positron emission, AMS antihelium candidates, Fermi antistar candidates, and the possible GRB annihilation line.
There is a falsifiable handle: predicted narrow X-ray lines from p̄p and He-p̄ atoms observable by XRISM or Athena (ref [49]), plus candidate detections that are not yet confirmed.
Non-expanding compact stellar-like objects with fixed-temperature BBN
purpose: Resolve the anti-D/anti-He ratio problem by producing roughly equal D and He abundances.
No predicted observable characteristics or calculation are provided; introduced ad hoc in Section V.B.
χ scalar field with baryonic number
purpose: Carrier of baryogenesis and antibaryogenesis via the Affleck-Dine mechanism; source of isocurvature bubbles.
From SUSY theories, not observed experimentally; its parameters are unconstrained in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antimatter in the universe and Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2QO3O7T

@misc{pith2026260810311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antimatter in the universe and Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2QO3O7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10311}
}

read the original abstract

Theoretical model leading to a significant Galaxy population by primordial antimatter is described. Observational data confirming this "crazy" prediction are presented.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[25]

K. A. Postnov, A. G. Kuranov, N. A. Mitichkin arXiv:2309 .16246 [astro-ph.HE]. Paper presented at the Fifth Zeldovi ch meeting, an international conference in honor of Ya. B. Zeld ovich held in Yerevan, Armenia on June 12–16, 2023. Published by the recommendation of the special editors: R. R uﬃni, N. Sahakyan and G.V. Vereshchagin

work page 2023
[23]

I. Ya. Aref’eva, A.Hajilou K. Rannu, P Slepov ”Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 12, 1143, e-Print : 2305.06345 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023
[1]

Konstantinov, M.M

B.P. Konstantinov, M.M. Bredov, Belyaevskii, A. I. et al ”The Possible Antimatter Nature of Micrometeorites”, Cosm ic Research, Vol. 4, p.58, 1966

work page 1966
[2]

Konstantinov, R.L

B.P. Konstantinov, R.L. Aptekar’, M.M. Bredov, M. M. ”In vestigation of gamma-radiation on Cosmos 135 in connection with possible antimatter composition of meteors.” Izv. Aka d. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz., Vo. 33, p. 1820 - 1826, 1969

work page 1969
[3]

Golenetskii, B.P

S.V. Golenetskii, B.P. Konstantinov, E. P. Mazets, et al et al ”Investigation of Variations of Annihilation γ-Radiation by the Artiﬁcial Earth Satellite ”Cosmos-135” in Connectio n with the Possible Antimatter Nature of Meteor Streams” Cosmic Research, Vol. 8, p.849, 1970

work page 1970
[4]

Schuster, ”Potential Matter

A. Schuster, ”Potential Matter. Holiday Dream.” Nature , 58 (1898) 367

work page
[5]

Heisenberg, in ”The Physicist’s Conception of Nature ” (Kluwer Academic,1972),p.264

W. Heisenberg, in ”The Physicist’s Conception of Nature ” (Kluwer Academic,1972),p.264

work page 1972
[6]

How to see an antistar

A.D. Dolgov, V.A. Novikov, M.I. Vysotsky, ”How to see an a ntistar” JETP Lett. 98 (2013) 519, e-Print: 1309.2746. 7

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 52 references

[7]

F. W. Stecker, D. L. Morgan, Jr., J. Bredekamp, ” Possible Evidence for the Existence of Antimatter on a Cosmological Scale in the Universe”, Phys. Rev. Letters 27, 1469 (1971)

1971
[8]

Stecker ”A new view of Baryon symmetric cosmology ba sed on grand uniﬁed theories”, Presented at Oxford Intern

F.W. Stecker ”A new view of Baryon symmetric cosmology ba sed on grand uniﬁed theories”, Presented at Oxford Intern. Symp. on Progress in Cosmology, England, Sep. 1981 P ub Date: September 1981

1981
[9]

F. W. Stecker, ”Grand Uniﬁcation and possible matter-an timatter domain structure in the universe”. Tenth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, p. 69 (1981). New Y ork Academy of Sciences, Annals, vol. 375, Dec. 29, 1981, p. 69-89. Pub Date: December 1981

1981
[10]

Chechetkin, M.Yu

V.M. Chechetkin, M.Yu. Khlopov, M.G. Sapozhnikov, Ya. B. Zeldovich, Ya. B. ”Astrophysical aspects of antiproton interaction with 4He (antimatter in the universe)” Phys. Lett. B, 118, Issue 4-6, p. 329-332. Pub Date: December 1982

1982
[11]

F. W. Stecker, ”The Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry of the Universe (keynote address for XIVth Rencontres de Blois)” arXiv:hep-ph/0207323

arXiv
[12]

A.D. Dolgov, ”Cosmological matter antimatter asymmet ry and antimatter in the universe”, keynote lecture at 14th Rencontres de Blois on Matter - Anti-matter Asymmetry, e-Pr int: hep- ph/0211260
[13]

Cohen, A

A.G. Cohen, A. De Rujula, S.L. Glashow, ”A Matter - antim atter universe?” Astrophys.J. 495 (1998) 539, e-Print: astro-ph/9707087 [astro-ph]

1998 arXiv
[14]

Steigman, ”Observational tests of antimatter cosmo logies”, Ann

G. Steigman, ”Observational tests of antimatter cosmo logies”, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 14, 339 (1976)

1976
[15]

Steigman, ”When Clusters Collide: Constraints On An timatter On The Largest Scales”, JCAP 10, 001 (2008); e-Print: 0808.1122 [astro-ph]

G. Steigman, ”When Clusters Collide: Constraints On An timatter On The Largest Scales”, JCAP 10, 001 (2008); e-Print: 0808.1122 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[16]

A.Dolgov, J.Silk, ”Baryon isocurvature ﬂuctuations a t small scale and baryonic dark matter” PRD 47 (1993) 4244

1993
[17]

A.Dolgov, M.Kawasaki, N.Kevlishvili, ”Inhomogeneou s baryogenesis, cosmic antimatter, and dark matter”, Nucl. Phys. B807 (2009) 229

2009
[18]

von Ballmoos, ”Antimatter in the Universe : Constrai nts from Gamma-Ray Astronomy”, Hyperﬁne Interact

P. von Ballmoos, ”Antimatter in the Universe : Constrai nts from Gamma-Ray Astronomy”, Hyperﬁne Interact. 228 (2014) 1-3, 91-100, Contribution to: LEAP2013, 91-100, e-P rint: 1401.7258

2014 arXiv
[19]

Dolgov, ”Antimatter in the Milky Way”, Nu cl.Phys.B 784 (2007) 132-150, astro-ph/0702350

C.Bambi, A.D. Dolgov, ”Antimatter in the Milky Way”, Nu cl.Phys.B 784 (2007) 132-150, astro-ph/0702350

2007 arXiv
[20]

Dolgov, S.I

A.D. Dolgov, S.I. Blinnikov, ”Stars and Black Holes fro m the very Early Universe”, Phys.Rev.D 89 (2014) 2, 021301, arXive 1309.3395

2014 arXiv
[21]

Dolgov, K.A.Postnov, ”Antimatte r and antistars in the universe and in the Galaxy”, Phys.Rev

S.I.Blinnikov, A.D. Dolgov, K.A.Postnov, ”Antimatte r and antistars in the universe and in the Galaxy”, Phys.Rev. D 92 (2015) 023516, arXive 1409.5736

2015 arXiv
[22]

JCAP 07 (2020) 063

A.Dolgov, K.Postnov, ”Why the mean mass of primordial b lack hole distribution is close to 10 M⊙”. JCAP 07 (2020) 063

2020
[24]

Dolgov, A.G

A.D. Dolgov, A.G. Kuranov, N.A. Mitichkin, S. Porey, K. A. Postnov, O.S. Sazhina, I.V. Simkine, ”On mass distributi on of coalescing black holes”, JCAP 12 (2020) 017, e-Print: 200 5.00892

2020
[26]

Aﬄeck, M

I. Aﬄeck, M. Dine, ”A New Mechanism for Baryogenesis”, N ucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 361-380

1985
[27]

Vilenkin and L.H

A. Vilenkin and L.H. Ford, Gravitational eﬀects upon co smological phase transitions, Phys.Rev. D26 (1982) 1231-1 241

1982
[28]

Linde,” Scalar ﬁeld ﬂuctuations in the expanding u niverse and the new inﬂationary universe scenario”, Phys.L ett

A.D. Linde,” Scalar ﬁeld ﬂuctuations in the expanding u niverse and the new inﬂationary universe scenario”, Phys.L ett. B116 (1982) 335-339

1982
[29]

Starobinski, ”Dynamics of phase transitions in th e new inﬂationary universe scenario and generation of pertu r- bations”, Phys

A.A. Starobinski, ”Dynamics of phase transitions in th e new inﬂationary universe scenario and generation of pertu r- bations”, Phys. Lett, B117 (1982) 175-178

1982
[30]

Dolgov, D.N

A. Dolgov, D.N. Pelliccia ”Scalar ﬁeld instability in d e Sitter space-time”, Nucl. Phys. B 734 (2006) 208-219. hep- th/0502197 [hep-th]

2006
[31]

Coleman, E

S. Coleman, E. Weinberg (1973). ”Radiative Correction s as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking”. Physical Review D 7 (6) (1973)1888–1910. arXiv:hep-th/0507214

1973 arXiv
[32]

Starobinsky, ”Stochastic de Sitter (inﬂationary ) stage in the early Universe”, Lect

A.A. Starobinsky, ”Stochastic de Sitter (inﬂationary ) stage in the early Universe”, Lect. Notes Phys. 246 (1986) 1 07

1986
[33]

Kn¨ odlseder ”The all-sky distribution of 511 keV ele ctron-positron annihilation emission”, Astron

J. Kn¨ odlseder ”The all-sky distribution of 511 keV ele ctron-positron annihilation emission”, Astron. Astrophy s. 441 (2005) 513, arXiv:astro-ph/0506026

2005 arXiv
[34]

Jean ”Spectral analysis of the Galactic e+e− annihilation emission”, Astron

P. Jean ”Spectral analysis of the Galactic e+e− annihilation emission”, Astron. Astrophys. 445 (2006) 579, arXiv:astro- ph/0509298

2006
[35]

Weidenspointner ”The sky distribution of positroni um annihilation continuum emission measured with SPI/INTEGRAL”, Astron

G. Weidenspointner ”The sky distribution of positroni um annihilation continuum emission measured with SPI/INTEGRAL”, Astron. Astrophys. 450 (2006) 1013, arXiv:astro-ph/0601673

2006 arXiv
[36]

Mirabel, ”The Great Annihilator in the Central Reg ion of the Galaxy”, The Messenger 70 (1992) 51

I.F. Mirabel, ”The Great Annihilator in the Central Reg ion of the Galaxy”, The Messenger 70 (1992) 51

1992
[37]

Hertz, J.E

P. Hertz, J.E. Grindlay, ”The Einstein galactic plane s urvey: statistical analysis of the complete X-ray sample”, Astrophys. J. 278 (1984) 137

1984
[38]

Sunyaev ”Two hard X-ray sources in 100 square degrees around the Galactic Center”, Astron

R. Sunyaev ”Two hard X-ray sources in 100 square degrees around the Galactic Center”, Astron. Astrophys. 247 (1991) L29

1991
[39]

Aguilar (AMS Collaboration), ”Towards Understandi ng the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Positrons”, Phys

M. Aguilar (AMS Collaboration), ”Towards Understandi ng the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Positrons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 041102

2019
[40]

Kachelriess, A

M. Kachelriess, A. Neronov, D.V. Semikoz, ”Signatures of a two million year old supernova in the spectra of cosmic ray protons, antiprotons and positrons”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 1 15 (2015) 18, 181103 • e-Print: 1504.06472 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[41]

Bambi, A

C. Bambi, A. D. Dolgov, A. A. Petrov, ”Black holes as anti matter factories”, JCAP 09 (2009) 013, arXiv:0806.3440 [astro-ph]. 8

2009 arXiv
[42]

Dolgov, A.S

A.D. Dolgov, A.S. Rudenko, ”Conversion of protons to po sitrons by a black hole”, 2308.01689 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[43]

AMS Days at La Palma , La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain,

A. Choutko, AMS-02 Collaboration, “AMS Days at La Palma , La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain,” (2018)

2018
[44]

Ting, ”Latest Results from the AMS Experiment on the I nternational Space Station”

S. Ting, ”Latest Results from the AMS Experiment on the I nternational Space Station”. Colloquium at CERN, May, 2018

2018
[45]

S. Ting, ”A Brief Summary of Ten Years of New and Unexpect ed Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station”, proceedings of 44th COSP AR Scientiﬁc Assembly (16-24 July 2022), vol. 44, p. 3071

2022
[46]

Choutko, ”Cosmic Heavy Anti-Matter” , proceedings of 44th COSPAR Scientiﬁc Assembly (16-24 July 2022), vol

V. Choutko, ”Cosmic Heavy Anti-Matter” , proceedings of 44th COSPAR Scientiﬁc Assembly (16-24 July 2022), vol. 44, p. 2083

2022
[47]

Duperray, B

R. Duperray, B. Baret, D. Maurin, et al, ”Flux of light an timatter nuclei near Earth, induced by cosmic rays in the Galaxy and in the atmosphere”, Phys.Rev.D 71 (2005) 083013, e-Print: astro-ph/0503544

2005 arXiv
[48]

Dupourqu´ e, L

S. Dupourqu´ e, L. Tibaldo and P. von Ballmoos, ”Constra ints on the antistar fraction in the Solar System neighborho od from the 10-year Fermi Large Area Telescope gamma-ray sourc e catalog”, Phys Rev D.103.083016 103 (2021) 083016, e-Print: 2103.10073 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[49]

Bondar, S.I

A.E. Bondar, S.I. Blinnikov, A.M. Bykov, A.D. Dolgov, K .A. Postnov, ”X-ray signature of antistars in the Galaxy” JCAP 03 (2022) 03, 009, JCAP 03 (2022) 009, e-Print: 2109.126 99

2022
[50]

Bykov, K.A

A.M. Bykov, K.A. Postnov, A.E. Bondar, S.I. Blinnikov, A.D. Dolgov, ”Antistars as possible sources of antihelium cosmic rays”, JCAP 08 (2023) 027, e-Print: 2304.04623 [astr o-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[51]

Ravasio, O.S

M.E. Ravasio, O.S. Salaﬁa, G. Oganesyan, et al , A bright megaelectronvolt emission line in γ-ray burst GRB 221009A”’ Science, 25 Jul 2024, 385, Issue 6707, p. 452; 2303.16223 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[52]

A.D. Dolgov. Plenary talk at 36th Rencontres de Physiqu e de la Vall´ ee d’Aoste on Results and Perspectives in Partic le Physics, arXiv:2301.01365

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

K. A. Postnov, A. G. Kuranov, N. A. Mitichkin arXiv:2309 .16246 [astro-ph.HE]. Paper presented at the Fifth Zeldovi ch meeting, an international conference in honor of Ya. B. Zeld ovich held in Yerevan, Armenia on June 12–16, 2023. Published by the recommendation of the special editors: R. R uﬃni, N. Sahakyan and G.V. Vereshchagin

work page 2023

[2] [23]

I. Ya. Aref’eva, A.Hajilou K. Rannu, P Slepov ”Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 12, 1143, e-Print : 2305.06345 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023

[3] [1]

Konstantinov, M.M

B.P. Konstantinov, M.M. Bredov, Belyaevskii, A. I. et al ”The Possible Antimatter Nature of Micrometeorites”, Cosm ic Research, Vol. 4, p.58, 1966

work page 1966

[4] [2]

Konstantinov, R.L

B.P. Konstantinov, R.L. Aptekar’, M.M. Bredov, M. M. ”In vestigation of gamma-radiation on Cosmos 135 in connection with possible antimatter composition of meteors.” Izv. Aka d. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz., Vo. 33, p. 1820 - 1826, 1969

work page 1969

[5] [3]

Golenetskii, B.P

S.V. Golenetskii, B.P. Konstantinov, E. P. Mazets, et al et al ”Investigation of Variations of Annihilation γ-Radiation by the Artiﬁcial Earth Satellite ”Cosmos-135” in Connectio n with the Possible Antimatter Nature of Meteor Streams” Cosmic Research, Vol. 8, p.849, 1970

work page 1970

[6] [4]

Schuster, ”Potential Matter

A. Schuster, ”Potential Matter. Holiday Dream.” Nature , 58 (1898) 367

work page

[7] [5]

Heisenberg, in ”The Physicist’s Conception of Nature ” (Kluwer Academic,1972),p.264

W. Heisenberg, in ”The Physicist’s Conception of Nature ” (Kluwer Academic,1972),p.264

work page 1972

[8] [6]

How to see an antistar

A.D. Dolgov, V.A. Novikov, M.I. Vysotsky, ”How to see an a ntistar” JETP Lett. 98 (2013) 519, e-Print: 1309.2746. 7

work page Pith review arXiv 2013