So, I posted this on a philosophy forum....(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I was in a psychology class and I thought of something while reading "Why does the earth exist?".....

Bear with me here:

We know that ... 0=1-1 or also shown as 0= 1 + (-1)

In the latter, we know that 0=nothing. So, essentially, one and negative one cancel each other out. Physicists have proven antimatter and that anti-universes are likely to exist. Think of the equation as "Nothingness= (1 our universe 1) (+colliding with+) (-1 our anti-universe -1) rather than 0= 1 + (-1). So, there is an anti-me right now, typing this same question on an anti-computer. If I were to collide with the anti-me, we would be disappear in a flash of light and all that would be left is energy. So, if the whole universe collided with the anti-universe, there would be nothing left over, and all of the positive energy would cancel out the negative energy and the final charge would be 0. Therefore, for something to be able to truly exist, it must not have a counterpart made of anti-matter. Because everything is made of anti-matter, nothing truly exists, because the universe which it inhabits is only one number in an equation, where there is another universe which is the opposite of this universe, cancelling out everything in our universe. Therefore, the cosmos is one big math problem, that hasn't been solved yet. What is the answer? It is 0; nothing exists and the 0 will not be unearthed until the collision of the matter universe and the anti-matter universe.

This was my theory (let me know if you find any other loopholes please!.) I showed this to all of my intellectual friends, trying to get them to refute it. However, they couldn't. I then showed it to my Dad, who immediately said "What about dark energy? Dark energy is neither matter nor anti-matter. If both universes collided, you would still have dark energy, which is something (therefore not equal to 0.)" So, there has been a refutation. I was wondering if any hyperintellectuals on here had any ad hoc descriptions that could make my theory viable again. Thank you!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, somebody commented, saying:

Matter and anti matter almost negated themselves at the beginning of the universe, there was believed to be a slight difference in the ratio, a fraction of a percent more matter than anti matter, and all the mass and matter we see today, is the left over of that earlier battle.

So it wouldn't necessarily be 0 =1+(-1) Perhaps more like 1.00001+(-1)

I'd imagine that if multiverse theory is true, a similar thing would have happened, perhaps with varying degrees of difference, or perhaps matter wins every time? Its difficult to predict anything when talking about the multiverse, as its impossible to reach one from the other.

Perhaps taking your question to a science / astrophysics forum, you'll get a detailed answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I leave you brilliant people with these questions:

1.) Was this person right about there being more matter than antimatter?

2.) Other than the matter>antimatter and the dark energy points, are there any other loopholes?

3.) Is there possibly an ad hoc variable or constant that could make this theory work?

4.) Am I at least on the right track?

Sincerely, another stupid teenager.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Metaphysical description of the cosmos, help with theory?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**