Discovery of anti-deuteron and the implication of CPT violation

Question

From [this review by
Antonino Zichichi 2009](http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/38704) and [this review from T. D. Lee in 2007](http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31867), it is said that Dirac is very upset when hearing the discovery of anti-deuteron (anti-matter of deuteron, the nucleus of [deuterium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium), called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron) in 11 March 1965.

However, Dirac is famous for prediction of the first anti-matter of electron, the positron. His prediction is based on the invariance of charge C-symmetry. Now we know that the parity P (Lee-Yang 1956) and charge C are both violated, and the CP is violated too.

>question: What is the implication of CPT for the discovery of anti-deuteron? 

>i) Is that CP violating and T-violating but CPT is preserved?

>ii) It is known at least mentioned in the [this review by
Antonino Zichichi 2009](http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/38704) see also [this review](http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31867)  article that the CPT is violated at the Planck scale, and relativistic QFT does not hold. Does the discovery of anti-deuteron imply anything about CPT violation? 

> iii) Finally, the final comment from the review "This implies that no theory exists that can guarantee that if we have matter then antimatter must exist. This is why the fact that all anti-atoms with their antinuclei must exist with certitude resulted from the experiment at CERN in March 1965." I suppose that it means that the violation of CPT does not guarantee the existence of anti-matter nor the existence of antinuclei. Is this interpretation correct and accepted? So what are the current theory that supports the violation of CPT?

Comments

My impression about the article is that it's rather the non-existence of antideuteron that would be more informative: if antideuteron doesn't exist then CPT must be violated; if it does exist, this proves nearly nothing and disapproves nothing about the violation of CPT. This should answer your i) and ii). For iii) I'm not aware any compelling theory or empirical evidence that would really make CPT violation an appealing idea, but this can be my own ignorance.