Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude

[Zinjanthropos]

Logicians.....Don't think we're on same wavelength.

[Syne]

Logical arguments are not evidence-based like scientific claims. But science cannot justify itself as knowledge without logical argument. Science cannot dismiss logic any more than logic can dismiss evidence.

[Yazata]

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/unive...s-conclude

EXCERPT: [...] Physicists at CERN in Switzerland have made the most precise measurement ever of the magnetic moment of an anti-proton – a number that measures how a particle reacts to magnetic force – and found it to be exactly the same as that of the proton but with opposite sign. The work is described in Nature.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” says Christian Smorra, a physicist at CERN’s Baryon–Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment (BASE) collaboration. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.” [...]

MORE: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/unive...s-conclude

That is a good question. Our universe seems to consist entirely of regular matter (as opposed to anti-matter). So what accounts for that massive matter/antimatter assymmetry? Presumably some physical process immediately after the big bang led to matter forming but prevented anti-matter formation. What was it and why? If both matter and anti-matter are physically equivalent except for charge, answering that question gets harder.

---

The statement of "The universe should not actually exist" bases that the universe is a naturally accidentally occurring phenomena.

I'm not sure what 'natural' and 'artificial' mean there.

'Accidental' presumably means non-intentional. I embrace that idea, since I don't think that the universe is a divine artifact, a manifestation of divine purpose. (I can't prove that though. It's more an element of my worldview. I'm an atheist-agnostic.)

But 'natural' seems more problematic. The word seems to suggest 'explainable by the same natural processes that physicists observe within physical reality'. Except that we don't really know of any natural processes that account not only for universes like ours, but for their own existence as well. We certainly can't be certain that the physical laws that physicists observe in our universe today are the same ones that explain universe origin events.

The thing is that the universe contains lifeforms that exist within it (sentience cares about existing, strata does not) and therefore would invest in making sure that it exists and continues to exist, otherwise life should not exist. This could be further conjectured into "If life didn't exist, nor would the universe."

I certainly don't believe that human beings caused the big bang and caused reality to take the form it does (including the matter-antimatter assymmetry) by some kind of psychic retrocausation. That's even less likely than the 'God did it' pseudoexplanation in my opinion.

But I do give some credence to a weak anthropic principle that says that the universe must be such that sentient observers can exist in it, if there are in fact sentient beings inside it observing it. If we exist, then the universe must be such that beings like us can form. (Speculative metaphysical multiverse theories often arise from those considerations.)

That still doesn't seem to get us any closer to explaining the matter-antimatter assymmetry.