The initial assumption, that the universe started from "nothing", is wrong. It leads to this paradox of missing antimatter. I mean, what is "nothing" anyway? Try to define it, and good luck with that.

If you make the opposite assumption, that the universe started from "something", the paradox goes away.

But the evidence clearly shows that something began 14 billion years ago, that a transformation began that turned whatever existed previously, into the universe we see today. If we investigate this idea, then various "transformations" might have occurred, such as a change of phase, or state, of matter.

Perhaps, when we look at the image of the Cosmic Microwave Background, we are seeing something like an X-ray diffraction pattern from a globular microstructure, and our universe today is the evolution of that microstructure:

Here is an image of the globular microstructure of Aluminum at 600 deg.C. The 2nd image shows how the microstructure of steel evolves depending on how fast it cools over time. The 3rd image is the Cosmic Microwave Background, the 4th image is the Cosmic Web, and the 5th image shows how Aluminum-Silicon alloy changes phase as its temperature decreases, depending on its composition - that is what weight-percent silicon is added to the liquid aluminum.

General Relativity might not require the existence of a "luminiferous ether" to explain gravity, but by discarding even the possibility of an ether of some kind, they might also be eliminating any possibility of making progress in science on the grandest scale imaginable, and understanding how our universe began. I'm thinking cosmologists should team up with metallurgists to find a way forward, because they are coming up with some pretty far-fetched theories, and they are all leading to paradoxes, or dead-ends. The idea of a universe as a giant hyper-eutectic structure really appeals to me. And we have tangible, physical materials to use as analogous models.