The beginning?

[cee-dee]

OK, so "They" say "everything" began with the Big Bang.

Fair enough, it was quite something and happened faster than the blink of an eye?

"They" also say nothing can travel faster than light?

If that's so, how can "They" view light which "began" shortly after the Big Bang?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

We are "here", they're viewing light from a heck of a long way away, such light will have taken billions of years to get here even at approximately 186,000 miles per second.

So how did we get out "here", so far from that light when it was Starlight so long ago?

OK, were we able to get to the source of that light in an instant, we'd find it was probably no longer there but we are billions of miles from where that light was so how come the matter from which our Solar System was formed got sooooo far away from the Stars they're no "seeing"?

[upthecreekyetagain]

the opposite end of the scale to nothing is infinity - it is just as hard to imagine an infinite object as it is to imagine nothing but both are just as real mathematically.

Is an infinitely large object the same size as two infinitely large objects? The answer is yes, but difficult to visualise using our experiences and senses

[cee-dee]

If you can get something out of nothing, it wasn't nothing in the first place, it was something.

[upthecreekyetagain]

No, it was nothing and now it's something.

Of course when it was nothing there was no time - without time there is nothing.

[cee-dee]

You still ain't explained how nothing can become something?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Maybe we should invite Professor Hawkins onto the board.

First off, can you accept the concept that everyting in the universe could total nothing.

If you can accept that concept then why is it so difficult to imagine everything in the universe coming out of nothing?

[cee-dee]

No, I can't accept that everyting in the universe could total nothing.

I'm waiting for an explanation as to how that could be so.

[cee-dee]

Oh, I suppose that before long, someone will deny that the answer to everything is 42?

Did you know dogs have 42 teeth? Therefore the answer to everything is a mouthful? ]:)

[upthecreekyetagain]

There are "observable" instances of something from nothing continuously happenning in the universe, known as quantum fluctuations.

Particles and anti-part particles form spontaneously and then combine and become nothing again.

So if something can come from nothing on that scale then why not on a larger one?

I'm not the one you should be directing this question at but maybe reading one of the many books on the subject may direct you to someone better equppied to answer your question.

[cee-dee]

No, I'm looking for your explanation. My own argument is developed in my own words, not those of someone else.

"They" have not decided if a Positron really is the opposite of an Electron so what chance is there?

[upthecreekyetagain]

I have already given you my understanding of the principle and apparently I have been unable to explain it to your satisfaction so at that point you have no option but to look to someone else to explain it to you if you really are interested in learning more.

The particles appearing and disappearing in quantum fluctuations are neither positrons nor electrons.  However you seem happy to accept the principle that positrons and electrons could be opposites so why can you not accept that you can get nothing from something ?:|

[cee-dee]

In a discussion, we lay out our respective points of view and although we might disagree, it's nice to do so without abuse or ridicule and long may it continue.

However, in asking for an explanation of how, I've yet to see it, I've only see a statement and question about something being made out of nothing.

[upthecreekyetagain]

How can you take an infinitely large number of objects from an infinitely large group of objects and be left with an infinitely random number of objects. 

Impossible for me to explain on a rational basis although I understand the mathematics behind such a statement.

Likewise with the idea that two somethings can become nothing or vice versa.  I can't explain it on a rational basis but I have confidence in those who say that it can be explained mathematically.

This is why I suggest that if you really are interested in this apparent conundrum that you read one of the many books on the subject.

I've seen suggestions that this was God's work but of course that opens up another conundrum, where did God come from?  Did He appear from nothing?

[cee-dee]

The trouble with "books" is....... one author say one thing and another says something else.

They don't say the same thing in different ways either.

If, as some hypothesise, everything "cancels" everything out, the Universe does not therefore exist.

Clearly that can't be true because we're here.........

Sooooooo, if things are not "cancelled out", it all wasn't made out of nothing and things cannot therefore return to nothing (again).

The whole thing needs a re-think by people not influenced by anything that's gone before.

We have dark matter, dark energy and I saw somewhere we have exotic matter and exotic energy? Really? Whatever next?

[upthecreekyetagain]

If, as some hypothesise, everything "cancels" everything out, the Universe does not therefore exist.

Not sure of the logic behind that statement ?:|

[cee-dee]

Logic? Now there's an old protagonist? ]:)

OK, back to logic. Is it at all logical that what's hypothesised by "them" has any logic to it?

Is the following Illogical?:-

"For all force in the universe there is an equal and opposite force acting and thus the sum of all force is zero.

If the sum of all force in the universe is zero and therefore the sum of all energy in the universe is zero, we could argue the universe does not exist, because all matter is made up of energy."

[upthecreekyetagain]

I don't see the logic in that final statement either.

Go back one step to your previous paragraph-

"For all force in the universe there is an equal and opposite force acting and thus the sum of all force is zero."

Two forces, equal and opposite, does not mean there aren't still two forces.  It is only when those two forces occupy the same space and time that they become zero, or nothing, all the time they are apart they are real and something.

The same with two particles which when separate are just that, two particles, but when combined annihilate each other at which stage they are nothing.

[cee-dee]

Who says when two particles combine they annihialate each other so there's nothing?

Can it be proved? Can it be proved that the combination hasn't created "something else"?

[cee-dee]

Must go for now but.......... I'm forced to say...... :^O "An object, when propelled by a force will continue in the direction of that force until acted upon by another force". :^O

[kreemeemunkee]

If it is of any help ...............the laws of physics dictates that something cannot be created from nothing.

This would lead us to ask....has there always been something (matter).

Could the case be that there has not at any point been nothing, but instead something that is eternally dynamic and forever changing.

I understand at the moment  that science tells us that the universe is constantly expanding.

But what is creating the raw material that the expanding and growing universe is made from?

Where is this material being produced?

What force drives this expansion?

I don't think that we as recently developed Apes will ever answer this.

[upthecreekyetagain]

If it is of any help ...............the laws of physics dictates that something cannot be created from nothing.

Which Law of Physics would that be ?:|

I don't see it as being anymore incredible that the universe came from nothing than that a God created it ?:|

As I posed earlier, if a God created the universe who created the God?