Searching for primordial antimatter
October 30, 2008
Antimatter is made up of elementary particles that have the same masses as their corresponding matter counterparts but the opposite charges and magnetic properties. This illustration shows what happens when a particle of antimatter collides with one of matter. The particles annihilate each other and produce energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, mostly in the form of gamma rays, which scientists are looking for using the Compton observatory. Secondary particles are also produced. This annihilation has not been seen in the Bullet Cluster. Credit: CXC/M. Weiss
Scientists are on the hunt for evidence of antimatter - matter's arch nemesis – left over from the very early Universe. New results using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Compton Gamma Ray Observatory suggest the search may have just become even more difficult.
Antimatter is made up of elementary particles, each of which has the same mass as their corresponding matter counterparts --protons, neutrons and electrons -- but the opposite charges and magnetic properties. When matter and antimatter particles collide, they annihilate each other and produce energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2.
According to the Big Bang model, the Universe was awash in particles of both matter and antimatter shortly after the Big Bang. Most of this material annihilated, but because there was slightly more matter than antimatter - less than one part per billion - only matter was left behind, at least in the local Universe.
Trace amounts of antimatter are believed to be produced by powerful phenomena such as relativistic jets powered by black holes and pulsars, but no evidence has yet been found for antimatter remaining from the infant Universe.
How could any primordial antimatter have survived? Just after the Big Bang there was believed to be an extraordinary period, called inflation, when the Universe expanded exponentially in just a fraction of a second.
"If clumps of matter and antimatter existed next to each other before inflation, they may now be separated by more than the scale of the observable Universe, so we would never see them meet," said Gary Steigman of The Ohio State University, who conducted the study. "But, they might be separated on smaller scales, such as those of superclusters or clusters, which is a much more interesting possibility."
In that case, collisions between two galaxy clusters, the largest gravitationally-bound structures in the Universe, might show evidence for antimatter. X-ray emission shows how much hot gas is involved in such a collision. If some of the gas from either cluster has particles of antimatter, then there will be annihilation and the X-rays will be accompanied by gamma rays.
Steigman used data obtained by Chandra and Compton to study the so-called Bullet Cluster, where two large clusters of galaxies have crashed into one another at extremely high velocities. At a relatively close distance and with a favorable side-on orientation as viewed from Earth, the Bullet Cluster provides an excellent test site to search for the signal for antimatter.
"This is the largest scale over which this test for antimatter has ever been done," said Steigman, whose paper was published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. "I'm looking to see if there could be any clusters of galaxies which are made of large amounts of antimatter."
The observed amount of X-rays from Chandra and the non-detection of gamma rays from the Compton data show that the antimatter fraction in the Bullet Cluster is less than three parts per million. Moreover, simulations of the Bullet Cluster merger show that these results rule out any significant amounts of antimatter over scales of about 65 million light years, an estimate of the original separation of the two colliding clusters.
"The collision of matter and antimatter is the most efficient process for generating energy in the Universe, but it just may not happen on very large scales," said Steigman. "But, I'm not giving up yet as I'm planning to look at other colliding galaxy clusters that have recently been discovered."
Finding antimatter in the Universe might tell scientists about how long the period of inflation lasted. "Success in this experiment, although a long shot, would teach us a lot about the earliest stages of the Universe," said Steigman.
Tighter constraints have been placed by Steigman on the presence of antimatter on smaller scales by looking at single galaxy clusters that do not involve such large, recent collisions.
Source: Chandra X-ray Center
19 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
My question is would antimatter behave in EXACTLY the same way as matter, or are there subtle differences between the two that would say prevent stars from burning "normally" or are there predictions of gravity acting differently amongst large bodies of anti-matter?
http://superstrun...foam.gif
Every foam bubble consist from two closely adjacent mebranes, where the particles of common matter are always formed by inner surfaces, while the antimatter particles are formedy by outer surface of that foam. The spiral-like motion of both surfaces exhibits a mirror-like symmetry, i.e. helicity, as follows from the scheme bellow:
http://superstrun...ance.gif
The point is, these particles can be never of the very same stability and energy density, because the particles formed by inner walls of foam branes are having a slightly higher curvature and therefore the energy content, then the antimatter particles. Currently the vacuum foam consist of very thin walls, so that the difference is very subtle. It manifests only for smallest level of fractal foam (neutrino and axion particles).
But at the high energy state the vacuum foam becomes turbulent and formed by very small bubbles of large curvature, where the surface gradients are separated considerably (for example inside of dense stars or at the very beginning of Universe formation).
http://superstrun...ent2.jpg
http://superstrun...foam.gif
Inside of such foam the difference between matter and antimatter particles is substantial, and the antimatter particles would evaporate much faster into radiation, then the particles of matter.
This model explains both why we cannot detect the primordial antimatter well: during universe formation the matter-antimatter equillibrium was quite dynamic, so (nearly) no antimatter could survive in contact with ordinary matter.
And it explains as well, why the properties of matter and antimatter differs so slightly by now. This paradox is quite common in evolution: we should always consider the conditions in the past, not the current conditions, when trying to explain the present state by some equillibrium. For example, while the sponataneous formation of life appear inprobable under current conditions, at the very beginning of terraformation it could be a nearly spontaneous process.
http://www.scienc...0830.htm
In adition, we should observe increased amount of antimatter inside of dark matter clouds, where it balances the parity of observable matter in the form of anti-neutrinos, axions and other ligthweight particles. Of course, here are number of other mechanisms, how to explain the presence of small amounts of antimatter inside of galaxies.
The consensus is that antimatter should be gravitationally attracted to matter but it hasn't been tested. Check out:
http://cat.inist....afficheN&cpsidt=20182351
That would be interesting and raises an interesting question in my mind - if gravity uses an exchange particle (graviton) to transmit its field, would it interact with an anti-graviton?
Here is another good article on this topic:
http://math.ucr.e...all.html
As far as other differences go:
There are some subtle differences in the weak force - whether that affects the nuclear processes that go on in a star, I don't know: If you want to look the topic up, the topic is "CP symmetry violations" (CP = Charge Parity) where a couple of particles (they discovered certain K and B mesons) have probabilities of decay that are slightly different if they decay as the particle or the antiparticle (they are freaky - they are both particle and antiparticle art the same time. But they have a slight preference...
Here is a link to some nice notes on the subject:
http://kicp.uchic...e_07.pdf
Wiki:
http://en.wikiped...symmetry
http://en.wikiped...symmetry
- - - - - - -
The bursts are the most brilliant occurrences in the universe after the big bang. GRB 080319B's afterglows, for instance, shone 2.5 million times more intensely than the brightest supernova on record.
Could these super gamma ray burst be proof of antimatter? What other source of energy can explain the biggest one?
http://news.natio...ect.html
http://www.iunive...00037539
http://tinyurl.co...-gravity
The collision of matter-antimatter star couldn't be a quick event at all, because the strong flux of resulting radiation would keep the matter and antimatter separated each other in analogy to Leidenfrost effect. Therefore such massive anihillation would proceed rather slowly.
http://superstrun...tons.gif
From AWT follows, both particles, both antiparticles are formed by dense blobs or aether foam with positive curvature, so they would exhibit the very same gravity action. The true antigravity matter would behave symmetrically in all aspects of matter behavior, for example it would exhibit an negative refraction index, which is difficult to imagine.
We see this same phenomenon happening today whenever we make matter and antimatter from pure energy by "Sparking the Vacuum".
Relative to our Universe "today" this parallel Universe is separated from us by being contained in a compact separate dimensional space or conjugate "bubble"(like a particle) embedded in the "original" four dimensional spacetime that spawned both of our Universes and we no longer have direct access to being trapped in our own compact dimensional space. To travel into that other parallel dimensional space we would need to time travel back to the big bang "first" and that epoch is a very long way away in time and we would probably become annihilated along the journey before we reached there (...like most of the present day antimatter forming spontaneously today in our Universe it is usually annihilated within a very short time). The antimatter particles are duals of our matter particles moving backwards in time.. see the linked image.
Any present day antimatter needs to "time travel" all the way back to the "Big Bang" to be "safe" from annihilation. Of course at the time of the Big Bang all these particles needed only to "time travel" a brief instant in time into the past to be "before it's own creation". Most of the matter that was forming in conjugate pairs simply spontaneously dimensionally separated "saving" both of our Universes from mutual self destruction.
The symmetry of time is reinforced in all quantum mechanical descriptions of "events" and was an implicit part of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (the precursor theory to Feynman's Nobel Prize winning QED Theory). This principle is also implicit in all Feynman Diagrams used universally in modern particle physics.
Definition of the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation...
http://medlibrary...retation
Illustration of how a particle might time travel from the future into the past using the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter...
http://members.op...avel.GIF
Blue lines are photons, A,B,C are electron positron electrons respectively. Electron A at time [T=1, S= 1.5] time and space travels as particle B to [T=0, S=2] and then continues on as an electron... particle C. Notice there is no net energy input required to produce this time travel if some kind of "catalyst" was used. Naturally these time and space coordinates are not absolute but illustrative.
F-S intepretation is correct and fully consistent with AWT, if we consider the AWT definition of time dimension:
http://aetherwave...ime.html
and the fact, antiparticles are living at the conjugated space-time brane (the outer surface gradient of AWT foam bubbles), as explained above.
The anti-particle "travel" in "reversel time" can be understood by the way, the particles of antimatter undergo a opposite evolution during Universe formation from symmetric state of graviton foam: they're evaporating into radiation, while common matter is condensing and vice-versa. At the moment, when graviton foam has condensed, the antiparticles formed by outer surface gradient become unstable and they started to evaporate on behalf of particles of ordinary matter, which has started to condense instead.
We can compare this duality to recrystalisation of refrosted ice cream or to recondensation of rain droplets due their surface tension. When the smaller ones will evaporate, the larger droplets will grow on behalf of these larger ones. So we can say, the small droplets are living in reverse time from perspective of rain formation!
The speed of matter-antimatter exchange depends on the scope of weak nuclear interaction, which exhibits a total CP parity violation. The scope of such interaction is quite limited by now after inflation, so that the matter interact with antimatter only at the small distances. But at the very beginning of Universe formation, when the Universe was a pretty tiny, the vector bosons interaction has played a role of long distance interaction and the radiative exhange of energy between matter and antimatter via vector bosons was quite fast - so that (nearly) none antimatter has survived up to present days.
Albert Einstein: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler!
Formal theorists often tends to belive, they've understood the subject at the moment, when they're able to write some equation for it. But the formal model is reductionistic and positivistic, as such equations can describe the reality just from only one perspective. To describe this reality completelly we are forced to consider whole infinite landscape of formal models, instead.
The fact, we understood some particular subject well can be tested easily by our ability to present direct analogies and/or testable predictions on formal logic level and our ability to describe the subject by plural way, i.e. even from perspective of another competetive theory!
The theorists, who are fighting mutually in mouse and frog battles just demonstrating before publicity, they don't understand the subject of their interest completelly. The AWT foam approach is just about freedom and plurality in thinking: everything is connected with everything by correspondence principle.
It's still possible to spend some money in the hope, we will find something unexpected - but the question always is, if such money cannot be spent more effectivelly. It's usually better to think twice and to consider some better theory before doing further step.
Microwaves, where the effect was first seen, are lower frequency than light, if thats what you mean. Here is a link to an interesting article:
http://physicswor...nt/17398
It has been seen recently for materials in the optical wavelength region:
http://www.nature...247.html
http://www.engadg...e-index/
http://technology...816.html
It has not been proven but is a commonly held belief which is conveniently forgotten from time to time.
If anti-matter does in fact travel backwards in time that will mean that time and normal matter are linked. And it is something that should be hard to forget. Yet it IS the prevailing theory and does get forgotten.
It in no way presupposes that the universe was in fact created by a fiery cataclysmic event. We could just as easily have matter and anti-matter being created all the time in equal quantities as appears to be happening anyway. And, this creation of matter/anti-matter may have been taking place since the beginning of time (which appears to be the case).
Just a matter of defining what is the beginning of time, or if there ever was in fact such a point.
Is the reverse time universe just as full of dark matter/energy as our universe?
Is there negative dark matter/energy?
Is there positive dark matter/energy?
Why do we think that there is such a large amount of non-baryon matter in the universe in the first place when protons, neutrons and electrons roaming free can behave in the same way?
If bigbang no->we might be alive->theory possible but our brain collapse
This is by now the result of physical theory science.Now you choose the color of your further scientific process.
The true is, the approach of modern physics isn't very compatible with AWT, because formal math cannot handle the infinities very well: with respect to other formal theories AWT is singular theory from its very beginning. While
AWT is based on parallel approach, every formal interpretation of Aether concept (i.e. math model) would bring a certain simplification into it and it would decrease the general character of Aether theory. If you need to compute something by formal way, i.e in infinite precission, we should face the fact, it wouldn't be general - and vice versa: the AWT can be understood in its entirety just by intuition, i.e. by common approach of billions of neurons inside of human brain.
From this very reason, it's unnecessary (but still challenging) to try to develop such TOE, which can explain everything by straightforward way. The true TOE should remain hiearchical by the same way, like the observable reality is.
Such approach has certain advantage even from social point of view - the fanatic proponents of competetive theories would be more willing to consider your theory, if you can show them, how it can support their own ideas. Frankly, nobody is ever interesting about ideas, which would negate the meaning of all their life...;-) This personal stance (surface tension of particles) effectivelly slows down both the propagation of advanced theories, both the collapse of black holes into singularity.
question: If our universe
inflated to its approx present
size in a fraction of a second,
and if nothing can exceed the
velocity of light, how come we
are here first, to see the
incoming light that began its
travels 12 billion years ago?
I've asked this for a long time
and no-one seems ready to reply.
tkjtkj@gmail.com
By AWT the inflation was a phase transform (a condensation) of environment, which is serving for light wave spreading. Such phase transform always occurs by the higher speed, then the speed of waves, spreading inside of such environment - so it violates the Lorentz invariance undeniably. In fact, quantum mechanics, dark matter streaks and gravitational lensing are all tangible evidences of Lorentz invariance violation.
But under deeper view, such transforms occurs just because the speed of energy spreading is invariant. If the speed of energy isn't sufficent to serve for effective energy spreading, the spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs. This is because the energy follows the surfaces, but the volume increases faster with expansion of Universe, then the surface, so that a new surface manifolds inside of expanding Universe volume must be created continuously. If you didn't understood it, try to have look at the animation bellow:
http://superstrun...ity.gif/
By analogous way, gravitational lensing violates the Lorentz speed invariance from outer perspective (the path of light is curved like during passing of light through the environment with different speed) - while from internal perspective it can serve as an evidence of it : it's just a space-time (i.e. path of microscopic energy spreading), which is being curved - not the macroscopic path of light!. We can see, the validity of every theory just depends on the observational perspective choosen. But you cannot understand it, if the thinking of yours will stuck in formal theories, you're required to consider some deeper insight into situation.
http://superstrun...dim2.gif
Of course, such model doesn't explain the formation of the previous environment, from which the Universe was formed, it just illustrates the duality between belief and logic by using of common life analogies: the more logic we will apply in explanation of reality, the more belief we are forced to accept to use such logic. From this perspective the belief in Big Bang event was just an another step in explanation of reality by Aether/God/unbelievable_thing in logical way.
http://superstrun...eexp.gif
In adition, as the matter is formed by preexpanded space already, the diference between matter and vacuum expansion increases in time, which we can observe as a dilatation and dissolution of kilogram or meter prototypes, the extinction of supernovas standard candles and many other testable phenomena including dark matter, Pioneer anomaly, Allais effect and many others. Here's whole new physics behind these intepretations.
You can discuss these implications for example here: http://www.orkut....5740926, this discussion is off topic here.
By AWT the new theories are formed just for aceleration of human understanding of reality because of increasing amount of new experimental data in analogy to matter condensation, not because old theories are fundamentally wrong. They're just overly detailed and complex. Of course, old assembly programmers and mainstream scientists wouldn't be very happy from such evolution - but that's the life. To understand reality on background of formal relativity and quantum mechanics is simply too workconsuming, difficult and noneffective for most of people and nobody will want to pay it for future.
(earls; "Cheezeburgers!" LOL)
http://www.newsci...ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
By Aether Wave Theory the Lorentz symmetry is simple consequence of fact, we are observing light wave spreading by using of light, whereas in common life we are used to observe energy wave spreading by light waves, i.e. a TWO waves are involved in observations. The exceptional character of light is simply given by fact, it's the fastest interaction, which can be used for observations (if we neglect the gravitational waves).
http://aetherwave...nce.html
It means, Feigenbaum's insight is both correct, both missleading at the same moment. Lorentz invariance isn't really related just for light wave spreading. But the exceptional role of light for relativity isn't so unsubstantiated, because we can observe whole causual reality just by light waves, not by sound or whatever else ones.
For further details please consider the discussion here:
http://www.physor...554.html
Velvetpink, perhaps your right to this limited extent, if i have deciphered your replies correctly (which would be purely coincidental if I managed that);
To have knowledge of the universe would imply that the mind has encapsulated reality within the scope of its a-priori intellectual forms and modes of understanding so that knowledge of reality is a mental ordering of phenomenon rather than a reproduction of reality as such. Our 'known reality' is necessarily entangled with mental constructs and so includes conceptual artifacts not necessarily existent apart from thought.
Where your wrong (if I understand you) is that this does not imply that the mind is not operating or functioning on something apart from itself (not purely definitions); we can and do rationalize reality successfully.
Don't you guys have jobs.. Or do you just like spamming nonsense in your employer's time?
Nice conclusions about my IQ. That from a guy who thinks our planet is a living being. I guess your reality is indeed somewhat different of mine.
Have fun with your monologue here friend.
By such way, Poppers methodology itself supplies no relevant clue, which approach is correct or not. For example, the MM experiment is generally believed as a refusal of Aether theory. But such conclusion is just an intepretation of the orginal experiment - until now nobody realized aparently, such interpretation can be as wrong as well - it's a just another theory, which should be tested and confirmed independently.
so the whole universe is the evidence and we have no theory? why would we need a theory if we already have the evidence? also no way universe care about Popper methodology..
For example, what the heck is principially wrong on the particle concept of vacuum? If we have no relevant objection against it, what prohibits us to deal with it seriously? The medieval thinking of people is still demonstrating its true power: even intelligent people, when facing new ideas are changing into primitive superstitionists suddenly.
man just a tip. you gotta stop thinking about what you know.you should start thinking about what you dont know.
*Gives velvet a lollypop and shoos him away*
All truly great ideas have "humble beginnings". Were the ancients "wrong" to worship Gaea who is one of the primal "elements" that arose from chaos and created order through "her" self organizing abilities? They thought so much of "her" they symbolized "her" as "The Key". The original Oracle at Delphi was dedicated to Gaea and it only later in it's decadence became the abode of Apollo. "She" was consulted for a knowledge of the future. To me this is now symbolically the role of Science as we ask the Universe to reveal it's secrets through our "sacrifices"... our experiments. The most pleasing of "sacrifices" to Gaea reveal the greatest insights into our collective future.
IMHO "I" think the Earth is a "living being" and I think our Universe is a living being as well. Why? Because it has us and other living beings in it as part of a self sufficient whole. The Gaea Hypothesis "works".
http://en.wikiped...pothesis
You can take any living system... For instance your bodies are made entirely of inanimate matter mostly water calcium and a number of organic molecules in "suspension"... there are also quite a few cells that we think are "alive"... Some of these cells are "human" and also quite a lot of them are "not so human or only partly human" but on which we are entirely dependent for our bodily survival. You may not like the idea that other "sub-human" species of creatures are responsible for your survival and you treat them as "parasites" but it is a fact that we need them as much as we need those "other" cells every bit as much as the ones we call "human". We exhibit this same unconscious disdain for everything in our world that is "the other" and we can't recognize that all living creatures share a common bond through our "common" genes and in the entire cosmos they are the only "close relatives" we actually have. Take those "others" away and we die... Capisci?
At an even larger scale, we as an entire species, are critically dependent on the ecosystem of the Earth being in a dynamic balance, the right temperature and the right ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide and nitrogen with a non-toxic level of radiation and it is a system that "struggles" for that balance to maintain a stasis in the living conditions on the Earth's surface (not necessarily with a view to maintaining only "human life"). It has all the common characteristics of the way we individually "struggle" to exist if we were able to consider this as an organism (...of course that is part of the problem). Humans may think they are important but we are all dependent on that homeostasis "struggle" within our ecological system being successful every day for our lives and for the thousands of collective human lives going far back in Geological History, your are the result of a single unbroken linage that selected you among all other competing strands to live while all others died but is there a naturalistic philosophical reason why?
Despite our collective attempts to destroy that balance with our "cancerous attitudes" to ourselves and other species by spreading, pillaging and growing "out of control" within a limited and finite resource... our Earth... we actually "cling to life on this planet by a fine thread".
There is considerable though disputed scientific evidence for the idea of Gaea but there is no proof of a personal G*d anywhere. Most North Americans and Australians believe in a personal G*d!! The IQ of people fails them when they do not want to look at "evidential based experimenal results" and prefer their "gut feelings" driven by human mortality or their exaggerated "authority" based solely on human hubris. It does not take a "wizard" to be able to laugh at others when our group supports "a pack attack". Groups of people self congratulating themselves in "hunting packs" or allowing the leader of the "pack" to decide the common good thinking that by "voting" on what they want to find as "laws" in the world they are in someway binding on the founding Principles of the Universe... I don't think so... No one can repeal the Law of Gravity and any other laws of the Universe and the real matters that concern "our long term collective future" probably does not depend on what is decided in a Court of Law or on the floor of a Stock Exchange. So spare a moment's thought for the future of our race and realize it may not have a future if we do not keep our mind continually on what is happening around us.
The "problem" with Gaea is "she" does not specifically care about humans and that should be of some concern to all denizens of Earth. "She" is not anthropomorphic enough to have a warm cuddly feeling about but "she" is the only "real mother" that continues to assist us through our lives (excepting those "withdrawals" competing for "first prize" in the Darwin Awards). We can't blame "her" for our political messes and we can't make "her" do our bidding. Humans may be a brief "flash in the pan" and it remains to be seen if that the only advantage we have going for us (our wits) are sufficient to preserve us as a species for the very long term. So far we have barely "passing grades" but as our numbers increase without limit I think we are going to "fall below the line" in the race for survival. At some point... perhaps a "tipping point" from which there may be no return... our "mother" will throw this "baby" out with the polluted bathwater to try and preserve this overall system. Life will continue but without the intricate "supporting web of life" we require for our continued good health. It may mean that we might be required to remove ourselves from the shallow end of the "gene pool".
If you do not have the experimental support for a theory then it is certainly scientifically "nuts". If it has experimental support it has at least "something going for it" and that can be identified as a kind of incomplete "Truth" that depends on how we ask our questions of the Universe. Dumb questions lead to dumb answers and only the most cleaver questions we can ask of the Universe, through our experiments, can result in answers that can lead to a deeper and more meaningful insight. Many civilizations before ours disappeared at their height... as did many species such as the dinosaurs, ammonites and the Trilobites. The Romans also disappeared from the Earth at their "apogee", there are no Romans left in Rome today... they were all "wiped out" mercilessly. "The End" snuck right up on them at the very height of their extensive "conquests" and they were "wiped out" to the last man woman and child. There is more Roman Blood in Britain today then there is in modern Italy. The higher a civilization flies the faster it falls. Until people have more than just "hollow mockery" to offer the thinking reader and considering to play the ball not the man... I go with Gaea!
Man dont worry you are universal too.
And man maybe universe is a lollypop but if so what could be a stick?
First of all, I quite disagree with the mainstream interpretation of what would happen in a Galaxy scale collision.
The consensus has been that interstellar distances are so great that most of the stars would pass by one another without collisions. But this simply does not add up.
Imagine if you doubled the average density of stars in the neighborhood of the Sun, simulating two milkyway type galaxies in a head on collision moving 180 degrees relative to one another, and simulating a direct hit such that each galaxies spirals overlap.
In the core of each galaxy, two SMBH pass literally within a few light years of one another, and should fall into one another's event horizons.
In the arms of the spirals, the average density of matter in interstellar space is doubled. The probability is very high that stars will greatly perturb one another's orbits and even trap one another, even if they are not on a pure "straight line collisions course". A star coming in from the other galaxy would gobble up huge amounts of left over interstellar matter, including oort clouds and nebulae, and generally completely disrupt the gravitational balance of the stellar neighborhood that it passes through. Scale that up 400 billion times, and you have a wrecked galaxy, most of which will collapse into a SMBH at the merger point of the disks.
====
On the anti matter star question.
Lol. 80 sol of matter 80 sol of anti-matter.
Wow. That is an obscene amount of energy.
sol sol = 1.8*10^47 Joules (larger than any gamma ray burst)
80 sol 80 sol = 1.44*10^49 Joules. (100,000 times larger than any gamma ray burst.)
That's enough energy to potentially eject millions or even billions of stars from the host galaxy. It would probably be one of the biggest explosions in the history of the universe, because that is 5 orders of magnitude larger than a gamma ray burst. The host galaxy would probably be wrecked leaving nothing but an SMBH and stars ejected in every direction becoming rogue stars.
Wikipedia
Which suggests that no matter-anti matter collisions larger than about 1/100000th of that scale (i.e. two objects each 1/1000 of the size of the sun) are taking place anywhere in the universe, that is if any are taking place at all.
In other words 1/1000th Sol of matter 1/1000th Sol of anti-matter is enough to make the largest explosions ever recorded in the history of the universe.
80 Sol 80 Sol would potentially destroy entire galaxies, certainly the host galaxy.