Tired light hypothesis and "accelerated expansion of Universe" - no need for dark energy.

     In the tired light hypothesis if the careful consideration is taken into account, the slow spreading of the initial beam of photons is present [1]. That will make the visible size of the distant objects seems larger compare to real angle size and the corresponding surface luminosity smaller. The observation of the supernova stars relies upon the suggestion that the real size of the explosion is independent of the distance (which is of course, true) and in the absolute absence of any spreading of the light in vacuum the visible size of the supernova explosion will be proportional to 1/R^2 (thus the idea of the standard candle comes to play [2]). 

    In the case of uniformly expanding universe the magnitude of the peak intensity of type 1 supernovae would be linearly proportional in the corresponding coordinates to the red shift observed (see, for example Fig.9 from [3]). Magnitude expressed as apparent magnitude [4] widely accepted in astronomy - the larger the number the more dim is the light, the brightest stars in the sky have small negative numbers like -1 for Sirius)

In this figure the experimental values of magnitude μ (proportional to 1/R^2 if no dust or light scattering is present) are plotted in the corresponding coordinates versus redshift z. The linear correlation obtained in Hubble times starts to deviate at higher z, what means (assuming there is absolutely no change in light properties or supernova properties) that the rate of change of z at the close Universe (later times assuming "Big Bang") is higher compare to older times (closer to "Big Bang").

That discrepancy was explained by the presence of "dark energy" which is generated in the most recent Universe (and absent at the times closer to "Big Bang") and accelerates the expansion of the Universe (the value z from Lemaitre times is attributed to the Doppler-like effect, meaning that the universe is expanding). Faster increase of z for the closer Universe means the Universe in the recent time (because the age is measured using relation r=c*t, where c - speed of light is presumed constant not changing with time) is expanding faster (more change on z value for the same time).

    How the  proposed by Hubble and others theory of tired light may explain the same phenomenon? According to [1] the light emitted by any object (including supernova) is slowly scattered with time (enormously slow, not in one step like Compton scattering, but in billions and trillions of very small steps, see [1]). In this situation the change in energy (energy loss), expressed as z will be observable well before any change of direction is obvious (change of energy is directly proportional to N - number of scatterings, while the change of direction is proportional to sqrt(N) and for huge N it may be very small - well below observation abilities). But eventually the scattering is visible and the visible diameter of the bright spot associated with supernova is enlarged perceptibly (the real diameter is of course, the same, the supernova in Milky Way and supernova in the galaxy one billion light years away are exactly the same). Once such a diameter is enlarged, the brightness is smaller and the supernova looks more dim than it is. If this phenomenon is not taken into account the apparent magnitude is larger (value of μ

in the figure is larger). 

Thus the simple idea of tired light being scattered not once (Compton scattering, original tired light hypothesis) but in very large number may not only easily explain all the problems with far galaxies [1], but also the "dark energy" which in fact is merely the wrong explanation of the observed supernova brightness as a function of distance. This observation in reality is the additional hint toward the nature of light - it is not as simple as piece of electromagnetic wave, it is something else (to be discovered). While in my first publication I advocated the presence of small rest mass of photon [5], in second book the idea of quantized gravitational dipole appeared [6] both those features of photon, despite being possible are still way too small to describe the phenomenon like discovered by James Webb Space Telescope [1]. Most probably photon is even more complex that many scientists believe (non-zero gravitational properties are present like in normal particle). Something even stronger is lingering in photon and much easier to observe (seems like new type of light scattering discovery is right around the corner).

References.

1.(PDF) Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering (researchgate.net)

2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

2.Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

3.(PDF) DISCOVERY OF DYNAMICAL 3-SPACE: THEORY, EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS-A REVIEW (researchgate.net)

4.Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia

5.(PDF) The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach (researchgate.net)

2011.0172v1.pdf (vixra.org)

6.(PDF) The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.2 (The second book on the topic, with emphasis on certain ideas.) (researchgate.net)

2212.0058v1.pdf (vixra.org)

Tired light hypothesis got first direct confirmation. Far galaxies demonstrate the features usually attributed to light scattering.

 Tired light hypothesis was rejected 100 years ago on the basis of absence of the light scattering. Indeed as described in details in publication [1] such scattering is not observed for Compton-like scattering indeed.

However, if instead of consideration of the "strong" scattering (one time and energy lowered according to red shift) the case of multiple "weak" scatterings is considered, there is no problem with absence of observed light scattering for nearby galaxies. If N - number of scatterings is very large (say trillions) than the energy is drained slowly (like in the case of red shift observed) but scattering is proportional to sqrt(N) and will be observable only for enormously far galaxies (exact mathematical formulas are in [1]). Of course, such an idea needs a new physics (5th force is proposed in [1]) because such interaction is incredibly small (well below electromagnetic, still stronger than gravitational). And far far galaxies as observed by James Webb Space Telescope indeed demonstrated unusual features (see [1] for photographs) very difficult to explain from Big Bang point of view (active galactic nucleus so early in history?) and easy to explain from light scattering point of view (as expected - majority of far far galaxies are represented by Gaussian circle - all information about galaxy structure is lost, only information about scattering left). 

Undoubtedly tired light explanation has its own problems. The largest one is: the energy drain should be proportional to energy (frequency of photon) so that the Doppler-like red shift is reproduced for the spectrum (it is not distorted by red shift because of such a dependence). This condition is easily reached in the case of classical mechanics but not possible for quantum mechanics (it is either 4th power of energy for Rayleigh scattering, or 2nd power of energy for Compton-like scattering or 0 power for Raman-like scattering). Another big problem is that spectra of far far galaxies demonstrates very strong light scattering as observed through line broadening, too strong for orthogonal light scattering observed (in Big Bang theory such line broadening is attributed to quasar-like plasma heating with velocities ~10 times larger than escape velocity of the galaxies). However, the idea of early galaxies being filled with exploding supernovas so early in history or with supermassive black holes so early in history seems completely contradict to all cosmologists know about close proximity of Milky Way.

References.

1.2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

(PDF) Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering (researchgate.net)

Quantization of the gravitational dipole. Implications for the red shift of tired light (instead of Big Bang).

 One of the direct consequences of the gravitational dipole quantization is the necessity of the presence of the gravitational dipole even for photon [1,2]. Indeed, for the quantization rule of Bohr-Plank the gravitational dipole would be:

mr=Nh/v

and for quantization according to quantum electrodynamics (and Feynman-Einstein): 

mr=h/v*(1/2+N)

where mr is the gravitational dipole, h - Planks constant, v - is the velocity of the particle.

For the ultra-relativistic particles v~c and for photons v=c (the very small deviation from c due to the non-zero hypothetical mass of photon may be omitted).

Than any ultra-relativistic particle and photon must have the non-zero gravitational dipole, which is at least 1/2*h/c or h/c (depending upon the quantization rule).

Thus even in the case of the zero mass of photon the gravitational dipole is not zero (despite the value h/(2c) is enormously small). That opened the interesting way to explain the red shift of light without Doppler effect - this is tired light based on new physical principle - gravitational dipole is oscillating on the travel of the photons and photon is shedding the gravitoelectromagnetic radiation (in the way similar to oscillation of the electric dipole radiating around). Evaluations shows, however, that if the gravitational dipole of photon is 1/2*h/c (minimum value) even oscillations with frequency of light (6*10exp(14) Hz for green light) is not fast enough to re-create the Hubble shift (lost of energy of around 0.5% for green photon for the distance of 20 Megaparsecs). Only if it is assumed that the gravitational dipole is oscillating with much higher frequency of c/λ, where λ is Compton length for electron (the quantum vacuum fluctuation length, λ=h/mc) the value of the energy radiated is in agreement with the Hubble constant. Such idea also prevents the enormously strong dispersion - proportional to the fourth power of frequency- inevitably would be observed during Hubble time. Indeed, the blue color of the sky is because of this frequency in the power of four dependence and the Hubble shift would be very distorting spectra if the oscillation of the gravitational dipole is determined by the frequency of light.

Another implication is that the value N in the formula for gravitational dipole of photon may be very high and not easy to estimate. But in any case such mechanism (in the case of the quantization of the gravitational dipole [1,2] is real) will offer the alternative way to explain the red shift without any Big Bang hypothesis and making the Universe possibly  infinite and eternal (or at least enormously big and old).

References.

1.The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach - published by Morebooks on December 2021.

THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach / 978-620-4-73173-5 / 9786204731735 / 6204731734 (lap-publishing.com)

2.Tipikin: Quantization of the gravitational dipole

Evaluation of the age of stationary Universe

 One of the competing to the concept of Big Bang is the idea of the stationary Universe. In this case the Universe should be much older than the limitations of the Big Bang concept because the red shift of the stars will not be limited to the values of 20-100 (the primodial stars formed after half a billions years after Big Bang) but have no limitations at all (may be as big as it is possible to imagine). In this case the numerous limitations connected with galaxies formations are completely removed (presently to explain why they are formed so quickly the second concept of dark matter is introduced, that dark matter was clumping before the barionic matter and those clumps accelerated the formation of galaxies as we see them). Galaxies have more than enough time to form from the gas and no necessity in dark matter for the history of galaxies (dark matter hypothesis still would be necessary to explain the accelerated rotation of galaxies, but this is  a different story, the dark matter is not necessary there too but for a different reason). But how old would be the Universe in this model? Assuming the red shift is due to some undiscovered yet mechanism of energy loss of the light during long long travel through the space ("tired light" but on new physical principles, see the previous post, for example) what would be the way to evaluate the age? 

The only remaining light coming from all directions is the microwave background (with red shift of 1089, [1]). In this model there may be two explanation of it:

A.This is thermalized light and it has essentially the temperature of Universe. In this case there is no way to evaluate the age of Universe at all - it may be eternal in all senses (infinite age). The light from the far far stars is losing energy till the photon reached the thermal limit (kT of microwave background) at which moment it is not losing energy any more, but rather stay at this temperature (like very hot teapot can not cool below room temperature by no means, initially at water boiling temperature it will only asymptotically approach the room temperature but never below).

B.That light indeed reflects the first stars. In this case the age of Universe very approximately would be something like 0.5 - 1 trillion years (the stars with age of 14 billions years assumed to have red shift of 20-100, and microwave background has a red shift of 1089, so those stars should be 1089/20 ~ 50 times older. Because it is already known that the modern red shift is not larger than for younger ages (the concept of dark energy or accelerating expansion of Universe) it is necessary to assume that the lower the energy of photon the less eager it is losing the energy and makes the age even larger.

In short, the Universe is at least 0.5-1 trillion years old but most probably eternal in all senses of that word. However, even age of 500 - 1000 billions of years is much older compare to the present Big Bang age evaluation of 14 billions of years and allows all the possible and future discovered processes being completed without any additional hypothesis (no dark matter is necessary to form galaxies, no dark energy is necessary to explain the accelerated expansion etc).

References.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

How absolutely accurate is the principle of relativity? Philosophical versus experimentalist approach. Virtual mass of photon hypothesis of red shift.

 The recent experiments with direct detection of gravitational waves showed that they arrived 1.7 second before the gamma-ray burst from the neutron stars merger [1]. While this is tiny deviation it posts a question about the speed of light - is it really not c (Lorentz speed from special relativity) but a tiny bit below it? And how absolute is principle of relativity?

While there were many attempts to overcome the principle of relativity (and all failed) they all came from the perspective of theoretical re-interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment and futile attempt to save the theory of classical ether. Here is the attempt to evaluate it from the point of view of experimentalist not theoretician. 

What is any physical law from the point of view of modern theoretician? This is most frequently the mathematical law beyond it which is from the philosophical point of view holds supreme, that is absolute from the point of view of mathematics. Indeed, the energy conservation law means no energy may be created or lost, absolute mathematical zero. Principle of relativity means that speed of light in vacuum is exactly Lorentz speed with absolute mathematical accuracy. In General Theory of Relativity the constant G is absolute and may not deviate nowhere, just absolutely fixed constant. Any such idea creates a possibility to express such law in quite simple mathematical form. The mathematical equations are written and new phenomena are predicted.

But from the point of view of experimentalist any physical law is just a fit to the existing experimental data and nothing more. It is obligatory approximate and by no means absolute - one day it will be rejected and become the simplified approach of more general law. And physics seems to confirm this point of view: Newtons law were considered as absolute, but finally became just a simple limit version of both quantum mechanics or theory of relativity depending upon the scale of research. The same is true with any physical law: it is just fit to the existing experimental data and nothing philosophically absolute is beyond it. They all temporary and just waiting to be revoked and replaced by some more general laws, which are in there's turn are to be replaced by even more general laws etc. However, some of such fits are enormously good! Energy conservation law is one example. Another example is principle of relativity and postulate that speed of light in vacuum is exactly Lorentz speed. That particular law is so accurate fit to the existing data that by many is considered as absolute. But that may be changed soon. Of course, even if it  is not absolutely correct it is very close to absolute, and the deviation is only possible to be very (enormously) small and revealed on very large (enormously large) distances, like in space. 

The idea of the non-absoluteness of the speed of light in vacuum originates mainly from the quantum mechanics and especially from the idea of quantum vacuum. For example, due to the presence of virtual particles in quantum vacuum it is responding to the external field and thus the Kerr effect in the vacuum is possible (quite serious publication in the very serious journal is here [2]). The author emphasizes the fact that the principle of relativity is respected in the sense that the received velocity of light is obligatory below Lorentz speed but from philosophical point of view the existence of such effect means that the principle of relativity is not an absolute any more, but rather an extremely good fit to the existing experimental data. The calculated deviation of the speed of light from Lorentz speed is enormously small (and well below measurability level) but it means that small deviations of speed of light from Lorentz speed are not a big deal anymore - the relativity principle is not absolute, rather a fit and may be replaced by more general law. 

From the point of view of experimentalist it opens the new venues of search for the experimental data, which would contradict to the existing paradigms of science and would create a "new physics". One of the ideas is that the red shift is not due to the Big Bang, but rather due to the inherent but not discovered properties of light which allow it to loose the energy while propagating the enormous distances of billions of light years which the observer at the Earth see like a red shift (of course it is red, means that the energy is lost, not obtained, which would contradict to another general law of energy conservation which is from experimentalist point of view not absolute too, but for right now and in this phenomenon is valid - say that law is better overall fit compare to principle of relativity).

From my point of view any matter including light is both particle and wave and thus the light obligatory has non-zero rest mass (despite of course enormously small) [3]. In this approach every particle including photon is considered as having rest mass and photon is ultra-relativistic particle for which the simplified energy relation E=p*c is valid (pulse times speed of light), as for any other ultra-relativistic particle like electron for example. In this approach of course that is approximate relation even for photon E~p*c, because in reality speed of light is a little bit below Lorentz speed c, which was possibly revealed by the experiment with gravitational waves (see the beginning of the post). The speed of gravitational waves is not Lorentz speed too, of course, from the same consideration as before, but the gravitational wave propagating with Lorentz speed is better fit compare to speed of light (and the Lorentz speed itself is not absolute, philosophically absolute value too, but that would be for future generations to discuss). 

But would be the origin of this mass for photon? Is it really the particle with some finite but very small mass (in this case the registration of non-relativistic  photon in vacuum would be very difficult since it would have the De-Broglie wavelength of enormous value - around 100 thousands meters for the photon moving with velocity of 1 m/s, from the evaluations done in [3]). The detector to register this particle as a particle should have a similar dimensions of 100 km and not feasible even in the far future. 

In this case the red shift may be explained very similar to the energy loss of  an ultra-relativistic particle moving in the field along the curved trajectory - the electron in cyclotron is circling around and as an accelerating particle shedding away photons (synchrotron radiation) thus loosing energy. The photons are subject to the gravitational fields (light is bent by masses) and since the mass is not absolutely zero, they are shedding away gravitons and are losing energy too. In this case since they are still ultra-relativistic this is not revealed as the change in speed (it is extremely small and unmeasurable) but as red-shift. Being propagated in the non-uniform gravitational fields for billions of years they are obtaining finally red shift observable on Earth.

Another interesting way for photon to have the finite mass is to have the virtual finite mass. In this case the quantum vacuum may offer such possibility. Quantum vacuum is considered as a special media obeying principle of relativity for the uniform motion and for the motion with constant acceleration [4]. Here is how it is stated in [4]:

"We may emphasize that the motional force does not raise any problem to the principle of special relativity. As a matter of fact, the reaction of vacuum (*) vanishes in the particular case of uniform velocity. The quantum formalism gives an interesting interpretation of this property : vacuum fluctuations appear exactly the same to an inertial observer and to an observer at rest. Hence the invariance of vacuum under Lorentz transformations is an essential condition for the principle of relativity of motion to be valid and it establishes a precise relation between this principle and the symmetries of vacuum. More generally, vacuum does not oppose to uniformly accelerated motions and this property corresponds to conformal symmetry of quantum vacuum [*]. In this sense, vacuum fluctuations set a class of privileged reference frames for the definition of mechanical motions"

Later in the same publication [4] the authors actually predict the existence of subtle effects never observed, connected with Kazimir forces, which creates the problems for dissipative processes in quantum vacuum being considered from point of view of principle of relativity. Essentially they came to the conclusion that if the process is dissipative and valid in quantum vacuum it may a little contradict to the philosophical absolute principle of relativity, like the publication [2]. This is actually expected and well in line with present blog: the principle of relativity is not philosophical absolute, rather a very good fit for the existing data and small (but actually extremely small and not yet possible to observe) deviations are not only possible but rather inevitable. 

In the sense of the quantum vacuum the light is actually supported by the popping in and out of the existence virtual particles pretty much as in a condensed matter with huge refraction index (say 10 in ultra-dense plasma) the light is almost completely supported by the real, not virtual, charges and dipoles (indeed, when the index of refraction is larger than 1 part of the energy of the electric and magnetic fields of light is actually in the induced polarization of the matter, not in the initial vacuum hold electric and magnetic fields, that  is why the speed of light is smaller and the values of the field are different). If the index of refraction is 100 almost nothing left of the quantum vacuum here, and the propagating light is almost entirely depends upon the properties of the real particles and real charge distributions. In essence the light in this situation is more like the total assembly of orientations and motions of the real particles. Thus the famous experiment of Fresnel dragging may be interpreted as follows. 

Einstein's formula u=c/n + v(1-1/[n*n]) or u=c/n - v(1-1/[n*n]) (see [5]), where u is the measured speed of light propagating in the media with refraction index n moving with velocity n in the direction of the light or against it

is because light is partially supported by media. If n=1 (vacuum, no support) the velocity is obviously c (principle of relativity). If the value of n is huge (say 100) the velocity of media is almost completely added or subtracted (in this case the aether theory is valid because the light is essentially nothing more now but some distortion of the moving media and almost nothing left from the vacuum part).

If the media with huge refraction index n is subject to tidal force of gravity near the gravitating body (say moving directly toward the center of the gravitating body) any distortion of the media is subject to such tidal forces too. Since the front part of the oscillation of the light is attracted more strongly toward the body than the other side ( in both cases, whether it is moving toward it or away from it) the light obviously is spread more together with the media (the wavelength is becoming larger). Thus if such media with light passes near the gravitationally attracting body (say the star being ruptured by tidal force passing near the black hole) the red shift must be obviously present and explained by the action of gravity on the media, not on light itself.

The quantum vacuum being almost completely OK with respect to principle of relativity, however, may explain the tiny red shift in the same way: the effective n for quantum vacuum is not exactly 1, but a little deviating from it (n>1, of course). This is exactly the conclusion of [2]. Then when the photon is passing the ominous spaces in the Universe traveling for billions of years this media (quantum vacuum) creates kind of non-zero virtual mass of the photon (despite indeed really very small). During the passage of the light near the gravitational body the light is supported by those virtual particles which are in turn are subject to gravitational field. From quantum mechanics it means that the non-zero mass is accelerating a little and thus obligatory shedding some gravitons and loosing energy. From classical electrodynamics point of view the virtual media of quantum vacuum is stretched by the tidal force, thus elongating a little bit (very small effect of course) the photon, leading to the increase of the wavelength and to the red shift. Once the gravitational body is passed the influence of it on virtual refraction index is over (n=1 with much larger accuracy) so the velocity of photon is restored too, but the stretch is not (because for both directions toward the body and away from the body the gradient is working in the same direction). If it would be real media it may contract back through the electromagnetic forces, but the quantum vacuum is different - it is not passing information from point to point. Light is being now supported by the quantum particles which popped out into the very short existence and have no knowledge about the virtual particles which supported light before the gravitating body.

The effect is enormously small but the photons is to travel billions of years, too. So this creates the slow change of the energy of photon through not change of velocity but rather through the elongation of wavelength - exactly red shift.

References.

1.Ask Ethan: Why Did Light Arrive 1.7 Seconds After Gravitational Waves In The Neutron Star Merger? (forbes.com)

2.Scott Robertson "Optical Kerr effect in vacuum"// Phys Rev. A, 100, 063831

Phys. Rev. A 100, 063831 (2019) - Optical Kerr effect in vacuum (aps.org)

3.Dmitriy S. Tipikin "The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach"

Published in MoreBooks in 2021:

https://www.lap-publishing.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-620-4-73173-5/the-quest-for-new-physics-an-experimentalist-approach

THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach / 978-620-4-73173-5 / 9786204731735 / 6204731734 (lap-publishing.com)

Free version on Vixra.org:

https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0172

The Quest for New Physics: An Experimentalist Approach, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0172

4.“Quantum vacuum fluctuations”  by Serge Reynaud, Astrid Lambrecht, Cyriaque Genet, Marc-Thierry Jaekel

CERN Research, 10.1016/S1296-2147(01)01270-7

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25312347.pdf

/home/www/ftp/data/quant-ph/dir_0105053/0105053.dvi (core.ac.uk)

5.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Dragging_effects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Dragging_effects

Energy-matter cycle (aka water cycle on Earth) instead of Big Bang idea. How energy is converted back to matter.

 The hypothesis of Big Bang is not the only possible way to visualize the Universe at the largest possible scale. If the James Webb telescope will fail to discover "end of light" and confirm it  the revolution in the astrophysics is inevitable. The red shift may be easily attributed to non-zero mass of photon (old abandoned idea of tired light, but on new physical principles, not yet discovered), microwave background may be something completely irrelevant but what about the generation of the energy in stars? 

Indeed, if the stars are only generating energy and the Universe is much much older than expected (say trillions of years or even older) how it is possible that stars are still shining? They would be completely depleted long ago. 

So it is necessary to hypothesize the reverse process - how energy is converted back to matter (it is assumed for now that the energy conservation law rules supreme and E=mc*c is valid with very high accuracy). 

Actually the only plausible hypothesis except for completely new processes to be discovered is connected with well known phenomenon predicted  by Soviet academician V. I. Goldanski and confirmed later in USA-  the two-proton decay. Indeed in this process the nucleus may be excited by some kind of energy consuming process (say proton of ultra-high energy accelerated in the space by magnetic fields and photons from the stars) will strike the appropriate dust particle, excite  the appropriate nucleus and generate two protons in the decay, thus successfully transforming energy back into the matter (and very important, hydrogen gas, which would later condense into the star and the process to be repeated again and again, pretty much like water circle on earth.

proton + energy + nucleus= nucleus + 2 protons

Indeed, the two proton decays are quite common and in the recent years they are discussed as important for the detection of neutrino [1].

In that and many many other articles the processes like multinucleon knockout are discussed, like (p,2p) and (p,3p), where the proton with huge energy generates two or three protons (and the remaining nucleus will undergo the process of more usual decay afterwards) successfully transforming the energy into the matter or even process of neutrino of extrahigh energy detection in which it is exciting the nucleon (energy absorbed) and it decays into the two or three protons plus nucleon with lower energy [2].

Essentially the processes like those may be responsible for the conversion of energy back to matter, than matter back to energy (through very easily observable stars burning in the sky) and again and again for possibly infinite time span. The important part will be notably played by the two-proton decay because this is the easiest from energy point of view way of conversion energy into the matter. No problems here from the antimatter point of view - it is not born here, the initial non-equilibrium distribution is merely preserved. Why matter predominate - it is a very good question in this picture of Universe, but as unsolvable as it is with Big Bang hypothesis - it is merely not enough knowledge now to answer it. Some amount of antimatter is of course generated during the conversion of energy back to matter, but it quickly converts back at annihilation (that would be the second, much smaller in scale and much less important cycle of matter-energy conversion). In this picture the Universe is back to the very very old ages, trillions or even more years old, possibly infinitely old. The observed non-uniformity of red shift in time is to be explained by some other phenomena (yet to be discovered) and the origin of Universe becomes the philosophical question again, rather than physical one.

The problem with this energy-matter cycle is that one part of the cycle is very visible (stars) while the second one is mainly hidden in the impossible interstar distances (slow aceleration of elementary particles with energy till they strike the appropriate nucleus), that is why our civilization successfully identified only one part of the cycle and failed so far apprehend the second, much slower part of it. Indeed, it means that at equilibrium the vast majority of energy is accumulated in wave-like particles like light (despite my another hypothesis actually demands that any matter is both matter and wave, merely barionic matter is mainly matter and only a little wave, while light is almost completely wave and just a little matter), which is actually quite accepted today (energy predominates the matter very strongly). The largest difference is the origin of such shift toward the energy and dynamic - in Big Bang hypothesis matter will eventually disappear completely while in my idea it is the equilibrium distribution.

References.

1.A.Frotscher et all "Sequential Nature of ðp;3pÞ Two-Proton Knockout from Neutron-Rich Nuclei" // Phys. Rev. Letters, Vol 125, 012501 (2020)

Sequential Nature of (p,3p) Two-Proton Knockout from Neutron-Rich Nuclei (aps.org)

2.J.E.Sobczyk et all "Exclusive final state hadron observables from neutrino-nucleus multi-nucleon knockout" // 2002.08302.pdf (arxiv.org)

How repelling of the gravity-antigravity particles may explain the gravity enhancement by the usual barionic matter.

In the classical electrodynamics the electric field generated by the charges is from positive to negative charge. Two positive charges repel each other and positive and negative charges attract each other. The dipole may be considered as close placed positive and negative charges. In this case in the case of the presence of the dipole particles near the electric charge the direction of the dipole is as shown in the picture below:

This is because the negatively charged part of dipole attracts to the positive charge and positively charged part of the dipole repelled by the main positive charge. In this case the electric field of dipole (still directed from positive to negative charge) is against the electric field of the main charge. This is a well known phenomenon and because of it the virtual dipoles created in the quantum vacuum are weakening the electric field and making the speed of light finite despite very large. Because of the same phenomena in the presence of any matter the electric field is weakened by the dipoles leading to the famous parameter of the dielectric constant in Coulomb law: 

E=[1/(4πεε_o)]*q/r²

Here E is electric field due to charge q, r is the distance from charge to the point of measurement, ε_o

is the dielectric permitivity of vacuum and ε is the dielectric constant.

Numerous attempts were given to invent the antigravitational particles and second spin (see the same blog of Tipikin, earlier publications) assuming the antigravitation will behave in exactly the same way as electrostatic - similar charges repel each other while the positive and negative attract each other. But it may happened that the situation is not completely symmetric - while the second spin is present and gravity is governed not by bosonic particles like Higgs, but rather in a way similar to electricity, the similar particles are attract each other while the gravitational and antigravitational repel each other. In this case the situation near the gravitational field in the presence of the dipole is different

The gravitational field in the presence of the gravitational dipoles is enhanced.

While it means that the gravitational dipole is very unstable and may be not easily detected, the virtual dipole in quantum vacuum still should be present (since it will decay back instantly before the Heisenberg uncertainty time is up). It means that in the presence of the strong gravitating body the polarization of quantum vacuum will enhance the gravity between two bodies, not weaken it as in the case of the electrostatics. In this case the effect observed for binary stars - the gravity seems enhanced when the stars are close to each other (the concentration of ordinary barionic matter is higher locally) compare to when stars are away from other (local concentration is smaller) [1].

This idea is also explains where is the antigravitational matter - even if it is created accidently in the colliding beams, it is instantly pushed away from Earth and out of this Universe (may be condensing somewhere in another Universe just near our own).

References.

1.D.S.Tipikin "Analysis of slope of mass-luminosity curves for different subsets of binaries - dark matter, MOND or something else governs the accelerated rotation of galaxies?" https://vixra.org/pdf/2008.0217v1.pdf