Antiuniverse?

[beatlefly]

This has been bothering me for awhile now I've been thinking a lot and the basic law of everything is that both sides of an equation must be balanced. So imagine that our universe is one side of the equation I've always wondered what is the other side of the equation. Now my theory is that on the other side of the equation there is a completely opposite and inverse version of our universe that cannot exist I'll refer to it as the antiuniverse. Confusing right? I'll try to explain. The basic thought process is that if our universe exist the antiuniverse has the exist as the nonexistent opposite of our universe. This means that it does not exist but it is still present so it can "balance the equation". Still confusing? I'll explain some of the antiuniverse's concepts to help you understand.

Universe Vs Antiuniverse

#1 Since our universe takes up a positive amount of volume, the antiuniverse takes up a negative amount of volume (which helps you understand why it does not exist.)

#2 The laws of our universe do not apply to the antiuniverse meaning that even first law of thermodynamics *Matter cannot be created nor destroyed* doesn't apply but the opposite effect, that in the antiuniverse can create and destroy matter. This will apply to all other laws.

#3 As our universe expands the antiuniverse shrinks. So that means before the Big Bang when matter in our universe was at a very condensed primordial state the antiuniverse was closer towards having a nonnegative volume.

There are more concepts but these 3 are the easiest to explain.

I also have a few hypothesis for why the concept of an antiuniverse might be true. No science exist today can explain where matter came from and whether it was created or it has always been here. The Antiuniverse can ALMOST explain the Origins of matter and our universe. Referring back to the first law of thermodynamics and how its flipped in the antiuniverse, if matter can be created or destroyed in the antiuniverse then maybe all if the matter in our universe can be traced back to the antiuniverse. (In reference to balancing equations) If the antiuniverse somehow created matter then equally it would have had to destroy matter in order to maintain balance, but since there was no matter to destroy in the first place the created matter and the *nonexistent* destroyed matter separated and made our universe and the antiuniverse. This kind of explains why the antiuniverse is real but doesn't exist, This also explains why the antiuniverse takes up a negative amount of space.

I want to elaborate but I can go on about this for hours, basically does anyone agree or disagree with my statements? I would like some feedback to further understand this.

 

[skepticalbip]

This has been bothering me for awhile now I've been thinking a lot and the basic law of everything is that both sides of an equation must be balanced. So imagine that our universe is one side of the equation I've always wondered what is the other side of the equation. Now my theory is that on the other side of the equation there is a completely opposite and inverse version of our universe that cannot exist I'll refer to it as the antiuniverse. Confusing right? ................
.............

Maybe taking the original assumption by itself would be enough to start. If that assumption can't be supported then the rest is superfluous - if not meaningless.

Is there any reason to imagine an equation in which the universe is one side? Kraus' take on "balancing the equation" in his Universe from Nothing is to try to stick with understood physics. He takes all the matter/energy in the universe as one side of the equation and gravity (negative energy), which is also in the universe, as the other side of the equation. If there is an equal amount of both then the universe in total is nothing so it coming from nothing was just the nothing differentiating into energy/matter and gravity..

 

[Bronzeage]

The basic law of everything? I think Douglas Adams exhausted this subject.

 

[ryan]

This is already accepted in science. And remember to keep your "opposites" on the same side of the equation: E energy + ( - E energy) = zero (nothing).

Anything deeper than what we can scientifically hypothesise or theorise about is philosophical.

 

[Kharakov]

Is there any reason to imagine an equation in which the universe is one side? Kraus' take on "balancing the equation" in his Universe from Nothing is to try to stick with understood physics. He takes all the matter/energy in the universe as one side of the equation and gravity (negative energy), which is also in the universe, as the other side of the equation. If there is an equal amount of both then the universe in total is nothing so it coming from nothing was just the nothing differentiating into energy/matter and gravity..

Kraus is an entertaining speaker, some nice ideas, but the whole woo "nothing" that isn't nothing thing annoys the crap outta me. Maybe he's just trolling though. I've seen him in talks in which other speakers (physicists as well as theists) call him to task on his abuse of the term nothing, saying that there still has to be a framework in place that allows the blank slate to be split up in some way.

What is an anti-strawberry? How about an anti-concept? What about anti-consciousness- anti-awareness?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there any reason to imagine an equation in which the universe is one side? Kraus' take on "balancing the equation" in his Universe from Nothing is to try to stick with understood physics. He takes all the matter/energy in the universe as one side of the equation and gravity (negative energy), which is also in the universe, as the other side of the equation. If there is an equal amount of both then the universe in total is nothing so it coming from nothing was just the nothing differentiating into energy/matter and gravity..

Kraus is an entertaining speaker, some nice ideas, but the whole woo "nothing" that isn't nothing thing annoys the crap outta me. Maybe he's just trolling though. I've seen him in talks in which other speakers (physicists as well as theists) call him to task on his abuse of the term nothing, saying that there still has to be a framework in place that allows the blank slate to be split up in some way.

What is an anti-strawberry? How about an anti-concept? What about anti-consciousness- anti-awareness?

Yeah, Kraus does dance around the nothing a lot but then all cosmologists seem to be masters of the two-step when pressed. I have heard Kraus give four different ideas of nothing. But it seemed to me that his book was more about answering the question of "why there is something rather than nothing". His answer being that the universe (when taken in total) is nothing.

Cosmology is, after all, mostly philosophy with a little physics thrown in to make it more believable.

 

[ryan]

Is there any reason to imagine an equation in which the universe is one side? Kraus' take on "balancing the equation" in his Universe from Nothing is to try to stick with understood physics. He takes all the matter/energy in the universe as one side of the equation and gravity (negative energy), which is also in the universe, as the other side of the equation. If there is an equal amount of both then the universe in total is nothing so it coming from nothing was just the nothing differentiating into energy/matter and gravity..

Kraus is an entertaining speaker, some nice ideas, but the whole woo "nothing" that isn't nothing thing annoys the crap outta me. Maybe he's just trolling though. I've seen him in talks in which other speakers (physicists as well as theists) call him to task on his abuse of the term nothing, saying that there still has to be a framework in place that allows the blank slate to be split up in some way.

I can kind of see his point, assuming I understand it.

There's the universe with 0 total energy. So if we reverse the Big Bang, we have 0 energy in 0 volume of space. That is nothing scientifically speaking, but it is still philosophically debatable.

What is an anti-strawberry? How about an anti-concept? What about anti-consciousness- anti-awareness?

For all matter there is supposedly an equal amount of antimatter (even though they can't find most of it). However, both have equal amounts of energy and will turn to pure energy if they come in contact with each other. The gravity supposedly cancels out all of this energy from matter and antimatter.

 

[Kharakov]

Kraus is an entertaining speaker, some nice ideas, but the whole woo "nothing" that isn't nothing thing annoys the crap outta me. Maybe he's just trolling though. I've seen him in talks in which other speakers (physicists as well as theists) call him to task on his abuse of the term nothing, saying that there still has to be a framework in place that allows the blank slate to be split up in some way.

What is an anti-strawberry? How about an anti-concept? What about anti-consciousness- anti-awareness?

Yeah, Kraus does dance around the nothing a lot but then all cosmologists seem to be masters of the two-step when pressed. I have heard Kraus give four different ideas of nothing. But it seemed to me that his book was more about answering the question of "why there is something rather than nothing". His answer being that the universe (when taken in total) is nothing.

Which is equally bullshit. Might as well be a buddhist who refuses to acknowledge reality, because it is more blissful to ignore it.

 

[Kharakov]

Kraus is an entertaining speaker, some nice ideas, but the whole woo "nothing" that isn't nothing thing annoys the crap outta me. Maybe he's just trolling though. I've seen him in talks in which other speakers (physicists as well as theists) call him to task on his abuse of the term nothing, saying that there still has to be a framework in place that allows the blank slate to be split up in some way.

I can kind of see his point, assuming I understand it.

There's the universe with 0 total energy. So if we reverse the Big Bang, we have 0 energy in 0 volume of space. That is nothing scientifically speaking, but it is still philosophically debatable.

It isn't nothing- there is still a framework that exists.

In fact, the Planck length limit is just a useless bit of bullshit thrown out there to cover up what is really going on at that level of reality- massive, hellish enslavement of consciousnesses from the beginning of time. And they are fighting back...

What is an anti-strawberry? How about an anti-concept? What about anti-consciousness- anti-awareness?

For all matter there is supposedly an equal amount of antimatter (even though they can't find most of it). However, both have equal amounts of energy and will turn to pure energy if they come in contact with each other. The gravity supposedly cancels out all of this energy from matter and antimatter.

What, if anything, does antimatter have to do with anti-consciousness? Are you attempting to demonstrate anti-awareness with your statements?

 

[ryan]

I can kind of see his point, assuming I understand it.

There's the universe with 0 total energy. So if we reverse the Big Bang, we have 0 energy in 0 volume of space. That is nothing scientifically speaking, but it is still philosophically debatable.

It isn't nothing- there is still a framework that exists.

In fact, the Planck length limit is just a useless bit of bullshit thrown out there to cover up what is really going on at that level of reality- massive, hellish enslavement of consciousnesses from the beginning of time. And they are fighting back...

Well then we must win the battle, chaos versus consciousness. This is what I do. Don't even ask. Lol!

What, if anything, does antimatter have to do with anti-consciousness? Are you attempting to demonstrate anti-awareness with your statements?

I thought you believe that consciousness and matter are the same thing?

 

[Archimedes]

OP seems quite confusing. What's on both siðes of an equation are the same, not opposites. So if there was a n equation with "the universe" on one side, then what's on the other side would be "the universe" (or some formula whose result was "the universe")

Saying that there's some equation that needs balancing with "the universe" on one side there needs "the anti universe" on the other doesn't make sense in the context mod trying to balance an equation. It's a bit like saying you have an equation with 4 on one side, therefore 4 = -4 because you need an opposite of 4 to balance the equation.