Before our ultra-early universe cooled, down to temperatures
~2 GeV, pair-production, of nucleons-with-anti-nucleons, would have kept nucleons & anti-nucleons in relative equilibrium ?
I.e. our observed matter-over-anti-matter dominance, only "froze in", after nucleon/anti-nucleons "solidified", at
T < 2 GeV ?
Meanwhile, electrons/anti-electrons would still have been pair-produced, down to temperatures
~1 MeV, at which time, they would also have "solidified" & "frozen in".
Er go, are there not
two matter-over-anti-matter asymmetries, the first for baryons
~2 GeV; and the second for leptons
~0.001 GeV ?
I'm confused, for several reasons. First, pions would have been produced, prodigiously, down to temperatures
~0.14 GeV. And, pions can inter-convert

. So, even if matter baryons, and anti-matter anti-baryons, "froze out", in fixed-or-decaying numbers, back at
~2 GeV; then any surviving baryons / anti-baryons could have kept inter-converting, down to
~1/7 GeV. And, during that epoch
(2 GeV --> 1/7 GeV), protons & anti-productions would possibly have interacted more strongly, than neutrons & anti-neutrons.
Also, if the observed matter nucleon ratio, of
7p:1n, is attributed to a Boltzmann factor

, then

. But why would
p,n have been able to so "freely" inter-convert, down to such "cold" temperatures, when pion production would plausibly have ceased, back at temperatures nearly a hundred times higher ??
And, if pions / anti-pions were produced, prodigiously, down to
~140 MeV; could their interactions, have generated additional nucleons / anti-nucleons ??
Vaguely, several temperature regimes would possibly have been identifiable:
T > 2 GeV -- pair-production generates nucleons, anti-nucleons
T > 1/7 GeV -- pair-production generates pions, anti-pions; nucleons, anti-nucleons freely inter-convert
T > 1/1000 GeV -- pair-production generates electrons, anti-electrons
How would the "bare" quark / anti-quark masses,
~few MeV, affect these phenomena ?
The
n:p number ratio is comparable to the nucleon:pion mass ratio,
~1/7, a coincidence; but meaningful, or a fluke ?