The Big Bang Theory

[mdwh2]

Karlos wrote:
As for (1), well particles pop into existance and wink out of it all the time at the smallest scale of the universe (IIRC, that is). However, these particles appear in matched pairs, the net energy of which is zero.

That last bit isn't quite correct - particles appear in matter and antimatter pairs, but antimatter still has positive mass, and positive energy. The total sum of the energy of the particles is in fact non-zero. This happens because of the uncertainty principle, where there can be an uncertainty in the amount of energy over small periods of time (or something like that). So yes, it's possible that the Universe itself is just a quantum fluctuation.

[mdwh2]

X-ray wrote:
But by your explanation we still have a problem (I hate to use mathematics here, because I think a mathematical zero doesn't equal what 'nothing' is, but it is an equation  that best describes my logic to you):

I think I see what you mean - it isn't so much a case of starting with the number zero, but with the empty set which is a different thing entirely.

It's one thing explaining how the energy for the Universe came about when initially there was zero energy, but this doesn't fully explain how the Universe came to be - why and how things like energy exist at all.

[mdwh2]

X-ray wrote:
If we imagine for a moment that you are satisfied with a mathematical zero equating to 'nothing' I would like to know if there is any evidence that the entire universe and matter and energy from which it is composed is NOT curently in fact a resultant of zero. In other words, how do we know that all the negatives added to all the postives, do not equal a big fat zero right now?

Because if we consider that they do, then you and I do not really exist, because we are 'nothing' when all the sums are totalled.

I don't think it makes sense to say that. All it means is that the total energy is zero, that doesn't mean that we don't exist. I don't stop existing if I have zero momentum, for example.

Or to put it another way, if a rocket moves by firing out gas in the other direction, the total sum of momentum is still zero (conservation of linear momentum), but it would be incorrect to take the rocket and say that it had zero momentum. Similarly, we still have positive energy, even if that is counteracted by negative energy elsewhere.

If we consider that the resultant is not zero, then where did the excess material/energy come from that gives us the universe as we see it?

Who knows. But if it always existed, I don't think that would be a contradiction of conservation of energy.