Scientists Conclude That the Universe Shouldn’t Really Exist

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The universe as we know it should not exist, scientists working at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, have said. After performing the most precise experiments on antiprotons that have ever been carried out, researchers have discovered a symmetry in nature that they say just shouldn’t be possible.

One of the big questions about the universe is how the first matter formed after the Big Bang. Because particles and antiparticles annihilate one another when they come into contact, if there were exactly equal measures of both, the universe wouldn’t exist—at least not in the form we see it today. As such, there must be an imbalance between particles and antiparticles, even if it is only by the tiniest fraction.
 
First proton decay (OH MY GAWD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN ONLY A FEW HUNDRED BILLION YEARS) now....

I ran across this theory in a Sci-Fi book about 30 years ago. The answer (in the book) was that by random chance/God/Whatever slightly more matter was created then anti-matter and we live in a universe made out of what was left over after the big Annihilation event.



-edit- :Missed a word, grammar fix.
 
Scientists know that there is slightly more matter than anti-matter created out of the Big Bang. What they don't understand is why. This doesn't mean that the universe shouldn't exist. We simply don't understand the variable that caused the shift towards our universe getting more matter than ant-matter.
 
Maybe the universe was just a couple old universes that collapsed and became singularities. One matter, the other anti-matter. They collided due to the massive gravity and kapow! The matter one was bigger and won the championship.

You have a universe that shouldn't exist, and organisms that took billions of years to evolve into us (and even then, we're probably pretty simple). Makes me feel pretty damn good. So many things that happened to put us here. So many "this isn't possible" things. If life is rare, and the universe shouldn't exist.... We're lucky. We dun gud.
 
I remember watching a show on National Geographic about this topic years ago. Cool stuff, thought provoking.


Moreover, think about this, Science & time have only existed since humans had the ability to create them. There are things in the universe that we may never understand. "Like tears in the rain". :)
 
Good to know!

I hereby form 'The Committee to Eliminate the Universe' and open the floor to suggestions on how to solve the crisis.

Perhaps we can stuff everything down a black hole? Then we wouldn't exist and couldn't perceive the universe and maybe it will go poof ! into nonexistence from lack of attention?
 
Ur_Mom said:
Maybe the universe was just a couple old universes that collapsed and became singularities. One matter, the other anti-matter. They collided due to the massive gravity and kapow! The matter one was bigger and won the championship.

You have a universe that shouldn't exist, and organisms that took billions of years to evolve into us (and even then, we're probably pretty simple). Makes me feel pretty damn good. So many things that happened to put us here. So many "this isn't possible" things. If life is rare, and the universe shouldn't exist.... We're lucky. We dun gud.
Click to expand...

One theory out there is that matter sucked into black holes comes out the other end via a white hole and this injects matter into another universe. Effectively, universes die, a bunch of their matter gets pulled through one end of a black hole and ejected out the other, spawning a new universe. Another is that the universe will expand to a point and then implode, create another big bang and regenerate the universe. Essentially, it's almost a perpetual motion machine that allows the universe to be created, die, and then be reborn again. Of course it would be different each time, but it's effectively a cycle of birth, life and death like so many other things we see in nature.

Krenum said:
I remember watching a show on National Geographic about this topic years ago. Cool stuff, thought provoking.


Moreover, think about this, Science & time have only existed since humans had the ability to create them. There are things in the universe that we may never understand. "Like tears in the rain". :)
Click to expand...

Anyone who enjoys this topic should see "How the Universe Works" if you haven't already. It's narrated by Mike Rowe and is very informative and strangely entertaining. I think the real reason why comes down to the quality of information and the fact that the CG used to illustrate these concepts is top notch. They also interview astrophysicists and scientists who comment on current theories in quantum mechanics, astrophysics, etc.
 
Scientists shouldnt exist because In GOD i Trust and everything ever made in the Universe was made by GOD. if anything, GOD may have and we dont know created the big bang theroy and created everything from that or maybe not!. Your not able to make NOTHING out of something that was NEVER there before unless your GOD............IN GOD I TRUST :D
 
So we are all going to die in a few trillion years......

What difference does it make?

Enjoy your life, and then get out of the way so the next generation can enjoy theirs :D
 
nutzo said:
So we are all going to die in a few trillion years......

What difference does it make?

Enjoy your life, and then get out of the way so the next generation can enjoy theirs :D
Click to expand...

Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, we're all gonna die...come watch TV.
 
Is it too much to assume that there is a metaphysical/spiritual/non-corporeal/supernatural existence that cannot be measured using physical/corporeal/natural means of observation? That the "spiritual plane" of existence can have some influence on the "physical plane" of existence and therefore there are things that "are" that "shouldn't be?"
 
jardows said:
Is it too much to assume that there is a metaphysical/spiritual/non-corporeal/supernatural existence that cannot be measured using physical/corporeal/natural means of observation? That the "spiritual plane" of existence can have some influence on the "physical plane" of existence and therefore there are things that "are" that "shouldn't be?"
Click to expand...

I had to reread that a couple of times to understand what you were going for. I thought I'd have to grab some skinny jeans, a wool cap, grow a douchebag line beard and become a Mac using, VW driving hipster to understand that statement. I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that hipsters invent the most convoluted and difficult phrasing to get a point across just so they can feel smug and superior. I'm not saying that's you, but holy crap that kind of talk can be simplified so that normal people can understand it.

Here's a simple way to put it: "Is it too much to assume that there is a realm or plane of existence that's not measurable by current science, and that this plane can effect the physical universe?" It's an idea put fourth by philosophers and even in Star Trek, in which thought is or at least influences reality. Anything you can imagine, must exist somewhere etc.
 
So honest question for all of you atheists out there. Is it possible that "science' is simply the reverse engineering of what a Creator has put in place: discovery of things that are simply outside of our possible understanding (current capacity to comprehend + variables) until deep research is completed? Is it possible that when scientific studies come out with inconclusive fact, they are sometimes marked as law/fact based on the presenter's hubris and an assumption that "well, this makes the most sense"?
 
jardows said:
Is it too much to assume that there is a metaphysical/spiritual/non-corporeal/supernatural existence that cannot be measured using physical/corporeal/natural means of observation? That the "spiritual plane" of existence can have some influence on the "physical plane" of existence and therefore there are things that "are" that "shouldn't be?"
Click to expand...

Cern would be happy to discredit all of those pseudo scientific blasphemies.
 
jardows said:
Is it too much to assume that there is a metaphysical/spiritual/non-corporeal/supernatural existence that cannot be measured using physical/corporeal/natural means of observation? That the "spiritual plane" of existence can have some influence on the "physical plane" of existence and therefore there are things that "are" that "shouldn't be?"
Click to expand...

I suppose what it all comes down to is nobody truly knows. Humans have a really long way to go before they figure all this stuff out or maybe they never will.
 
oldmanbal said:
Cern would be happy to discredit all of those pseudo scientific blasphemies.
Click to expand...

While at the same time scratching their heads over something they deduce that as should not being, even though it is literally in their faces? Yea, we'll trust that.

That is the reply of a pseudo scientist. The topic is the very evidence that science has to be both fact and belief. You don't get anywhere without the other. They think the universe shouldn't be, that is belief, yet it does, fact.
 
Particle man, particle man
Doing the things a particle can
What's he like? It's not important
Particle man

Is he a dot, or is he a speck?
When he's underwater does he get wet?
Or does the water get him instead?
Nobody knows, Particle man
 
Maybe just as many anti-particles were created as normal particles. Just that when the Big Bang went boom, most of the anti-particles went left and most of the normal particles went right. That galaxy that we can barely see with our best telescopes? Maybe its an anti-particle galaxy. Maybe all the anti-galaxies are too far away to ever be seen because of the universal expansion.

Not sure why they expect to find different creation rates between normal and anti when an imperfect mixing seems like a far better explanation.
 
Last edited:
fowlrock said:
So honest question for all of you atheists out there. Is it possible that "science' is simply the reverse engineering of what a Creator has put in place: discovery of things that are simply outside of our possible understanding (current capacity to comprehend + variables) until deep research is completed? Is it possible that when scientific studies come out with inconclusive fact, they are sometimes marked as law/fact based on the presenter's hubris and an assumption that "well, this makes the most sense"?
Click to expand...

I'm not an Atheist exactly. However, I'm almost 100% positive that every man, woman, child, transsexual, hermaphrodite, or other sentient being on this planet I haven't covered is wrong on this topic. We don't come back with the knowledge of what's on the other side when we die. Even if we reincarnate, we don't come back with the knowledge of the afterlife intact. Accounts that contradict this in any way are unreliable at best. Therefore, no one can prove a god exists in any way, shape or form suggested by any religion on Earth. Even if you can take any part of any religious text at face value, there is probably a great deal of it which was influenced by politics, religious sects, and the social issues of the times those parts were written. Therefore, they were written and then translated by man. Humans make mistakes and tend to see everything through a certain perceptual filter. We know some stories in the bible, or other religious texts cannot be true. Most, if not all religious texts fail to differentiate between stories that are factual accounts and those which are parables, metaphors or examples designed to teach a specific lesson. People did drugs, had a number of mental illnesses that weren't understood and couldn't be treated. Anything they said in writing or otherwise is questionable at best. Some guy says that his dog told him to kill people, and everyone thinks he's nuts. Go back a couple of thousand years and a guy talking to a burning shrubbery is somehow acceptable. The fact that the story is in print makes it no more credible than stories about Bat Boy or doomsday prophecies (that never come to pass) recorded in the Weekly World News.

I don't believe there can't be a god. I simply think it's unlikely. My best guess is that God doesn't exist the way religion on Earth believes it does. If there is a god, it has no gender, it's probably not judgmental or even vengeful. At least not with life forms as simple as us. I doubt it cares what we think or what we do. I think we are less significant to a being like that than an ant is to us. Humans, our concepts, our knowledge, our capabilities are far beyond what an ant can understand or do. However, ants sometimes piss us off and get crushed as a result of it. I doubt we are that important to a god, should one or more of them exist. As for the secrets of the universe, if anything, a god put things into motion and created the back end processes, but the universe probably evolves in it's own way without specific intervention. God, (if real at all) in that sense may not know we exist beyond the potential for us to exist when things were set in motion.

I doubt that's even the case. If you acknowledge a supreme being, then you have to ask the questions: Where did God come from? Who or how was it created? You don't create something out of nothing, so you can't really argue that it's simply a non-linear being that always existed. Everything must have an origin. At least, as we understand physics and other sciences today. What we know of the universe and science seems to indicate that "God" as we understand it is unlikely. Even if there is one, I think human ignorance and their tendency to look at things from their perspectives and biases alone make anything we do know about divine beings suspect at best, and utter horseshit at worst.
 
Dan_D said:
*SNIP*
I doubt that's even the case. If you acknowledge a supreme being, then you have to ask the questions: Where did God come from? Who or how was it created? You don't create something out of nothing, so you can't really argue that it's simply a non-linear being that always existed. Everything must have an origin. At least, as we understand physics and other sciences today. What we know of the universe and science seems to indicate that "God" as we understand it is unlikely. Even if there is one, I think human ignorance and their tendency to look at things from their perspectives and biases alone make anything we do know about divine beings suspect at best, and utter horseshit at worst.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I believe in the big bang theory!
 
Balzac said:
That is exactly why I believe in the big bang theory!
Click to expand...

While we don't have all the answers but there are certain themes we see proliferate in the whole observable universe. We can infer some theories on how this cycle can be applied to other areas of study, including astrophysics. There is a cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth or procreation to almost everything. Stars are born, they create elements within them, those stars explode and scatter the elements across the universe which become everything from planets to people. Speaking of the Big Bang, that ball of energy and or matter had to come from something. Be it a white hole or some other event we don't understand. Like I said, the theory I like is that the universe inevitably grows to a point where it reaches critical mass and then collapses in on itself and then re-explodes in a new big bang starting everything over again. In which case, our universe may have been rebooted before. Perhaps thousands of times before. We probably won't ever know how it all really works.
 
Dan_D said:
I had to reread that a couple of times to understand what you were going for. I thought I'd have to grab some skinny jeans, a wool cap, grow a douchebag line beard and become a Mac using, VW driving hipster to understand that statement. I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that hipsters invent the most convoluted and difficult phrasing to get a point across just so they can feel smug and superior. I'm not saying that's you, but holy crap that kind of talk can be simplified so that normal people can understand it.

Here's a simple way to put it: "Is it too much to assume that there is a realm or plane of existence that's not measurable by current science, and that this plane can effect the physical universe?" It's an idea put fourth by philosophers and even in Star Trek, in which thought is or at least influences reality. Anything you can imagine, must exist somewhere etc.
Click to expand...

I do tend to get a bit wordy. Maybe that's why I am employed in a call center, and not as a writer!
 
Dan_D said:
While we don't have all the answers but there are certain themes we see proliferate in the whole observable universe. We can infer some theories on how this cycle can be applied to other areas of study, including astrophysics. There is a cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth or procreation to almost everything. Stars are born, they create elements within them, those stars explode and scatter the elements across the universe which become everything from planets to people. Speaking of the Big Bang, that ball of energy and or matter had to come from something. Be it a white hole or some other event we don't understand. Like I said, the theory I like is that the universe inevitably grows to a point where it reaches critical mass and then collapses in on itself and then re-explodes in a new big bang starting everything over again. In which case, our universe may have been rebooted before. Perhaps thousands of times before. We probably won't ever know how it all really works.
Click to expand...

so going back to my original post, your hubris and acceptance of what you've seen this far brings you to the conclusion of "well, this makes the most sense"? :)

If you can believe that there are laws of nature, and an assumed understanding that "things are what they are because of these constants, aka physics", why is it hard to theorize that something set/created those laws of physics and itself is outside of those laws/constants?

All I'm arguing is that in the original article, the balance of matter and anti-matter doesn't make sense after being studied in depth. Life itself being possible despite the chaos and the randomness of the universe doesn't make sense. So with that said, does that make the theory of a creator invalid?
 
fowlrock said:
so going back to my original post, your hubris and acceptance of what you've seen this far brings you to the conclusion of "well, this makes the most sense"? :)
Click to expand...

Whoa there. I said I liked the theory. Nothing more. I haven't concluded anything based on it. Saying I like something isn't the same thing as saying: "This is what I believe." That doesn't mean that it's automatically more credible than any other theory. I think matter expelled through white holes is almost equally as plausible as the expansion / collapse idea. My understanding of the universe is limited and I realize that. I know I'm probably in error, or at the very least, I don't have all the facts. No one does. I am open to all kinds of possibilities. I haven't accepted anything as being factual given that everything we know is largely theoretical. It's based on math and simulations. Right now we can draw conclusions based on the available evidence. This doesn't mean that our conclusions will be 100% right. Especially when we know we are missing information. We still don't fully understand dark matter. It's hard to conclude anything as being concrete without this seemingly basic gap in our knowledge.

So, saying it's hubris of me to accept something I like isn't accurate given that's not what I'm doing.

fowlrock said:
If you can believe that there are laws of nature, and an assumed understanding that "things are what they are because of these constants, aka physics", why is it hard to theorize that something set/created those laws of physics and itself is outside of those laws/constants?
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I wrote and comprehend what I've said. I didn't say I was certain that God, metaphysics, religion or anything else was wrong with 100% certainty. I said that I believe these things to be wrong, not because I liked a theory, but due to the faults of humans. I explained what I believe this while acknowledging that I could be in error. Again, I'm not an Atheist. Reread my post.

fowlrock said:
All I'm arguing is that in the original article, the balance of matter and anti-matter doesn't make sense after being studied in depth. Life itself being possible despite the chaos and the randomness of the universe doesn't make sense. So with that said, does that make the theory of a creator invalid?
Click to expand...

Life being possible in the chaos and randomness of the universe DOES make sense. You have to consider the sheer size of the universe. We can see hundreds, if not thousands of galaxies in space. Each galaxy has billions and billions of stars in it. Similarly, many of those will have planets. Planets have thus formed trillions and trillions of times or more. Each time a planet forms, there is a chance life could form there too. I suspect, that life fails to start more often than not. However, that doesn't mean that things don't align every once in awhile to make it happen.

The right set of circumstances coming together at the right time to create life may very well be a product of random chance. For example, it's possible for a coin to land on it's edge or for someone to win the lottery, get hit by a meteor or struck by lightning. Somethings are a product of a string of random events or multiple variables coinciding in just the right way. We see examples of this in nature as well. For example, we have at least two other planetary bodies in this solar system alone which show clear evidence of an Earth like history. Mars and Venus. However, something went wrong and both of those planets are now uninhabitable by humanoid life as we know it. Certainly, uninhabitable by us despite having similar origins and composition. Having the right ingredients doesn't mean that you can bake a cake. Similar conditions don't cut it. They have to be the right conditions with little margin for error. Planets have formed in the universe probably trillions of times at varying distances from their stars. Medium, G-type and larger stars seem relatively rare. So life that's exactly like us is probably not terribly common. I think microbes and other forms probably are relatively common, but that's another topic. An inability of certain individuals to grasp the staggering number of stars and worlds or the rarity of things coming together to create life doesn't validate the intelligent design hypothesis. An inability to understand how a game is played doesn't change how the game works.

Furthermore, I never said the theory of a creator is invalid. I said, I don't think a creator exists and if one does, I think humanities concept of said creator is way off the mark. Given that religion has often been used and abused for the purpose of powerful people to control the masses, I don't doubt my notion that religion and the general concept of this creator being is wrong at all. That isn't the same thing as saying a creator is impossible. Similar to the Big Bang theory, there are unanswered questions and problems with the idea of religious entities existence. We don't know why there is more matter in the universe than anti-matter. It's a piece of the puzzle we have to solve. Similarly, if a creator exists, then where did it come from?
 
If one was walking on a uninhabited planet with no life and all you could see was sand, rock, and more sand. Say you stumbled upon a working pocket watch half buried in the sand on that barren planet. Would it be reasonable to assume the pocket watch chanced to evolve? Or would you rule it was designed and built by some other entity?

Human bodies/life in general are infinitely more complicated than a pocket watch.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
 
jardows said:
Is it too much to assume that there is a metaphysical/spiritual/non-corporeal/supernatural existence that cannot be measured using physical/corporeal/natural means of observation? That the "spiritual plane" of existence can have some influence on the "physical plane" of existence and therefore there are things that "are" that "shouldn't be?"
Click to expand...

You just better start sniffin' your own rank subjugation, Jack, 'cause it's just you against your tattered libido, the bank and the mortician forever, man. And it wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive.
 
With all the known dumb shit humans have done in our short time here.. we shouldn't be here even though we are here even though we shouldn't be.
 
How is what jardows said any more "hipster" than the entire Matrix trilogy?

In any case, I feel like these scientists are seen as the angsty teen emos by their peers. Let's just try to support them through this hopefully short transitional period. They may soon leave home and then we'll be all alone.
 
Still waiting for "scientists" to finally say: Well we don't know chit, maybe we're not that smart after all and we should stop being pompous douchebags.

Not holding my breath though.
 
Dan_D said:
Whoa there. I said I liked the theory. Nothing more. I haven't concluded anything based on it. Saying I like something isn't the same thing as saying: "This is what I believe." That doesn't mean that it's automatically more credible than any other theory. I think matter expelled through white holes is almost equally as plausible as the expansion / collapse idea. My understanding of the universe is limited and I realize that. I know I'm probably in error, or at the very least, I don't have all the facts. No one does. I am open to all kinds of possibilities. I haven't accepted anything as being factual given that everything we know is largely theoretical. It's based on math and simulations. Right now we can draw conclusions based on the available evidence. This doesn't mean that our conclusions will be 100% right. Especially when we know we are missing information. We still don't fully understand dark matter. It's hard to conclude anything as being concrete without this seemingly basic gap in our knowledge.

So, saying it's hubris of me to accept something I like isn't accurate given that's not what I'm doing.



You didn't read what I wrote and comprehend what I've said. I didn't say I was certain that God, metaphysics, religion or anything else was wrong with 100% certainty. I said that I believe these things to be wrong, not because I liked a theory, but due to the faults of humans. I explained what I believe this while acknowledging that I could be in error. Again, I'm not an Atheist. Reread my post.



Life being possible in the chaos and randomness of the universe DOES make sense. You have to consider the sheer size of the universe. We can see hundreds, if not thousands of galaxies in space. Each galaxy has billions and billions of stars in it. Similarly, many of those will have planets. Planets have thus formed trillions and trillions of times or more. Each time a planet forms, there is a chance life could form there too. I suspect, that life fails to start more often than not. However, that doesn't mean that things don't align every once in awhile to make it happen.

The right set of circumstances coming together at the right time to create life may very well be a product of random chance. For example, it's possible for a coin to land on it's edge or for someone to win the lottery, get hit by a meteor or struck by lightning. Somethings are a product of a string of random events or multiple variables coinciding in just the right way. We see examples of this in nature as well. For example, we have at least two other planetary bodies in this solar system alone which show clear evidence of an Earth like history. Mars and Venus. However, something went wrong and both of those planets are now uninhabitable by humanoid life as we know it. Certainly, uninhabitable by us despite having similar origins and composition. Having the right ingredients doesn't mean that you can bake a cake. Similar conditions don't cut it. They have to be the right conditions with little margin for error. Planets have formed in the universe probably trillions of times at varying distances from their stars. Medium, G-type and larger stars seem relatively rare. So life that's exactly like us is probably not terribly common. I think microbes and other forms probably are relatively common, but that's another topic. An inability of certain individuals to grasp the staggering number of stars and worlds or the rarity of things coming together to create life doesn't validate the intelligent design hypothesis. An inability to understand how a game is played doesn't change how the game works.

Furthermore, I never said the theory of a creator is invalid. I said, I don't think a creator exists and if one does, I think humanities concept of said creator is way off the mark. Given that religion has often been used and abused for the purpose of powerful people to control the masses, I don't doubt my notion that religion and the general concept of this creator being is wrong at all. That isn't the same thing as saying a creator is impossible. Similar to the Big Bang theory, there are unanswered questions and problems with the idea of religious entities existence. We don't know why there is more matter in the universe than anti-matter. It's a piece of the puzzle we have to solve. Similarly, if a creator exists, then where did it come from?
Click to expand...
I appreciate your reply. I am not describing hubris as a negative implication, but as confidence.

And I did read your post, many times. I in fact did not call you out as an atheist (though I did invite them to chime in with my first post), I simply am arguing (presenting questions, actually) that creation has just much reason to be debated along side multiverse, big bang, white hole and the many other theories out there.

When it boils down to it, we don't have all the answers and maybe only our descendents will. But we need to keep asking questions...gives us something to do until Jesus comes back ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top