# The Paradox of Existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494 "2003-03-23T03:45:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CaptBushido](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e4f/32.png) [@CaptBushido](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptBushido)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/21 "2003-03-23T15:49:11Z")
Excellent discussion, so far. Don’t get the impression that I really believe that either of those facts are indisputable. I put them there to be disputed and challenged. Also, I consider energy “something” when I say something out of nothing. Spiritus Mundi: I VPPM a theory or an observed phenomenon? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![CaptBushido](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e4f/32.png) [@CaptBushido](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptBushido)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/22 "2003-03-23T15:50:46Z")
Never mind, SM. “Predicted effect of quantum electrodynamics” I’m not reading carefully enough. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/23 "2003-03-23T22:38:53Z")
Yes, virtual particle pair anihilation creates energy. This energy perfectly balances the energy “borrowed” from the quantu, field when the pair iitially materializes. (as **eburacam45** states, the initial materialization of the pair is a negative energy event.) **CaptB** Virtual partile pair materialization has been experimentally verified in the only manner that it ever will be able ot be verified, through predicted indirect effects. These include both the Lamb shift (detectable in microwaves) and the Casimir effect (the experiment with metal plates to which **Ramanujan** makes reference). What has not, to the best of my knowledge, been confirmed experimentally is the specific materialization of “real” particles due to the disruption of a virtual particle pair in a high-energ photon field and/or region of intense gravity (as in the edge of a black hole). ---
**Author:** ![Kempis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kempis/32/19248_2.png) [@Kempis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kempis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/24 "2003-03-24T02:42:01Z")
It’s not a fact that everything has a beginning, for the idea of “before and after” depends on the existence of time. Whatever happened at t\<0 hasn’t yet been explained to me by the physicists, and I’m not holding out much hope that it will. Aramis used the word “inconceiveable”, and that got me thinking even though something is inconceivable it’s not necessarily incorrect. I also don’t understand the matter-antimatter energy-antienergy pair stuff. Is it assumed that this is the method that matter came into existance at the beginning? Then why did matter have the bias to stick around? -k -k ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/25 "2003-03-24T07:17:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kempis \* > I also don’t understand the matter-antimatter energy-antienergy pair stuff. Is it assumed that this is the method that matter came into existance at the beginning? Then why did matter have the bias to stick around? for the record, there is no anti-energy (as far as i know). negative energy just means a process requires energy to occur. for example, matter anti-matter particle pairs can be generated from energy. when they annihilate, they release that energy. and one of the great mysteries of physics that physicists require anything better than the current big-bang theory to address is the abundance of matter over antimatter. if everything started off as energy, they should exist in equal parts, but there is much more matter (at least in the observable universe) than antimatter. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/26 "2003-03-24T08:57:59Z")
Disclaimer: I’m not a physicist, so please correct me if I say anything that’s just completely wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CaptBushido \* > FACT: Something cannot appear from nothing. I have a question for you. Where are you getting the idea that the universe appeared from nothing? This implies that “nothing” is somehow the default state of reality. Since we exist in the universe, I would think it more logical to assume that existence is the default state. > [@](#): > > Where did the Singularity before the Big Bang come from? Why did it have to “come from” anything? I’m probably repeating what has already been said, but if I’m not mistaken, cause and effect are a function of time. To say that the singularity “came from” something is to say that it was the effect of some cause that ostensibly occured _before_ the universe. But there is no time at the inception of the universe; it is literally the beginning of time. We can’t say one way or the other if there is existence outside of our universe; there may be. But we can’t define such existence in terms of _our_ time, because time is not defined outside of our universe. To ask what occured before the Big Bang is like asking what’s North of the North Pole. > [@](#): > > Is our whole perception of the universe way off? In a sense, I think it is. Our minds are not adapted to comprehend things like singularities and time/space relativity because we live here on Earth, and have never had the need to intuitively grasp such things. Newtonian Physics works very well to explain the everyday things that we experience, but when we get away from our limited sphere of existence, that model breaks down. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/27 "2003-03-24T10:20:37Z")
**Ramanujan** I believe that current cosmological models account for the preponderance of matter over antimatter with CP assymetry in boson (b-meson) numbers in the first moments of an inflationary Universe. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/28 "2003-03-24T12:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > To say that the singularity “came from” something is to say that it was the effect of some cause that ostensibly occured before the universe. Not necessarily. A photon, for example, “comes from” an electron dropping to a lower energy state even though there is no “cause” for the drop. An event does not necessarily imply a cause, but it does necessarily imply a mechanism. In the case of a photon being created, where there is no cause, the mechanism is a quantum leap. The question that I have always asked, which is similar to the question in the OP, is this: how can something arise from nothing when nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism by which something can arise? Unless the universe is eternal, there had to be a mechanism by which it arose. But if it is eternal, then there must be some mechanism by which energy available to do work is restored to a closed system; otherwise, the universe would almost certainly be in a state of 100% entropy. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/29 "2003-03-24T14:36:42Z")
There may well have been a ‘mechanism’ which caused the universe to exist, and/or set the entropy clock back to zero… this mechanism may exist in a dimension outside of our own, an idea which is suggested in Brane Theory. ~WAG~ When the characteristics of the greater outside universe are investigated, they may explain this thermodynamic riddle, without recourse to intelligent design. Time, or entropy, or both might be reversed, or irrelevant in the higher dimensions. However I think that we will possibly be able to find out certain things about the higher universe, the branes, the macroverse… one day we might be able to make informed guesses about mass distribution in adjoining dimensions by studying dark energy and other mysterious things. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/30 "2003-03-24T14:59:31Z")
> [@](#): > > There may well have been a ‘mechanism’ which caused the universe to exist, and/or set the entropy clock back to zero… > this mechanism may exist in a dimension outside of our own, an idea which is suggested in Brane Theory. The introduction of a new entity doesn’t really solve the problem from a physical standpoint, although it might from a metaphysical standpoint. Speculations about a Brane and speculations about a God to fill the gaps are, in this instance, philosophically identical. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/31 "2003-03-24T15:34:16Z")
It’s not true that everything has a beginning. Time, for example, cannot be said to have begun. The difference between theoretical hyperphysics and a God-of-the-gaps is that the first can be shown to be incorrect or obsolete while the second cannot. Theoretical physics eventually makes predictions that can be tested, which leads to its being tested or discarded. Theology rarely makes predictions, satisfied with generating explanations instead. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/32 "2003-03-24T15:54:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\ ***Ramanujan** > I believe that current cosmological models account for the preponderance of matter over antimatter with CP assymetry in boson (b-meson) numbers in the first moments of an inflationary Universe. AFAIK many bosons are their own antiparticles (at least photons are). From this standpoint I would imagine massive particles are the ones that are violating symmetries resulting in a preponderance of matter over anti-matter. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/33 "2003-03-24T16:14:24Z")
> [@](#): > > The difference between theoretical hyperphysics and a God-of-the-gaps is that the first can be shown to be incorrect or obsolete while the second cannot. What is the test for the existence of a Brane? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/34 "2003-03-24T16:30:22Z")
Theoretical hyperphysics cannot currently _be_ tested. It can be considered a science only to the degree to which it uses the mathematical tools of empirical sciences. As branes and similar hyperdimensional constructs are merely speculation at present, they don’t require proof or disproof. Ultimately, they’re not that important. Now, when physicists utilizing a new mathematical model predict a new and unexpected particle, and that particle is later found, _then_ it’ll be time to get excited. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/35 "2003-03-24T18:04:12Z")
How does this… > [@](#): > > The difference between theoretical hyperphysics and a God-of-the-gaps is that the first can be shown to be incorrect or obsolete while the second cannot. …square with this… > [@](#): > > Theoretical hyperphysics cannot currently be tested. ? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/36 "2003-03-24T19:38:00Z")
Theoretical hyperphysics can be tested; it can’t be currently tested by human beings. The only method we have of examining such theories is to determine if they’re mathematically consistent. In principle, however, such theories can be falsified. A God-of-the-gaps, in contrast, can never be ruled out as long as there are aspects of the universe left unexplained. Since it’s impossible for any subsystem of the universe to explain the universe. . . Such a hypothetical entity can only be pushed back, not falsified, no matter what evidence or reasoning is used. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/37 "2003-03-24T20:26:20Z")
_standard disclaimer: IANAP_ **erl** The current suspect for CP asymmetry is the _X_ boson, and it is indeed very heavy. The theory is that it decays in a manner that violates CP symmetry. A side effect of this is actually a finite lifetime for protons. So, while the _X_ boson is beyond our means for direct verification, attempts are being made to verify it inderectly through proton decay. CP violation is also considered to be present in the standard model in the interactions of Z and W bosons, but while that perhaps suggests the possibility of the CP violation in _X_ bosons, it shouldn’t be considered more than suggestive. **Lib** I consider youe question to be one of the classic “unanswerables”. We can certainly spend some fun hourse speculating, bu there appears to be no way that we will ever be able to gather evidence one way or another. It is certainly possible to concpetualize hypersystems which do not run into the “first cause” dilemna, but that doesn’t really mean much. Here’s a simple one which dreams up a singularity event in one Universe spawning another Universe whose relative arrow of time points in “the opposite hyper-direction”: ```auto *standard diclaimer: I have always sucked at ascii art* Big Bang[sup]1[/sup] Singularity[sup]1[/sup] *-------------------(arrow of time)----------------|---------> /\ | | \/ <--------|--------------------------------------------------* Singularity[sup]2[/sup] Big Bang[sup]2[/sup] ``` ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/38 "2003-03-24T20:28:01Z")
Oops – didnt’ mean to stretch the window. If a mod could pull some spaces out of that code block it would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/39 "2003-03-24T21:13:40Z")
Of course, we then need to explain the dual-universe system. The cosmos remains unexplained. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494/40 "2003-03-24T21:25:23Z")
Um . . . thus the characterization “unanswerables”. _N’est ce pas?_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-paradox-of-existence/163494.md?page=3)