quote:
Originally posted by markee
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
So yes, we did have something before the big bang. Even in Dan Brown's book, his definition of something out of nothing is 2 particles colliding to give you some antimatter however you did need those 2 particles, didn't you? 
yep, but that third particle comes out of the blue, it is created. By normal means it would mean it would already have been there (matter/energy is never lost, it is converted). So where did it come from.... "creating something out of nothing". 'something' like that..
So this is all under the assumption that our laws of physics might be flawed? The one I'm refering to is "matter cannot be created nor destroyed".
Exactly...
'they' say before the big bang matter is all concentrated in the singularity. They can't proof it. Hence some of those experiments I suppose. Also the "create something out of nothing" should be taken not literally I suppose... or not... who would tell... those scientists I suppose
EDIT: and then again, not quite exactly. Our laws of physics are divided into two major groups: the laws of normal physics and the laws for quantum physics. Both are totally different and the one we're talking about is quantum physics.
/ 
