Hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion. That's the difference.

How can one get these two ingredients from nothing? Hawking uses an illustration involving a man who builds a hill by digging a hole in the ground, thus perfectly balancing out the “positive” hill with the “negative” hole. He then claims, “This is the principle behind what happened right at the beginning of the Universe. When the Big Bang produced a vast amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy” (“Curiosity…”). But how could a bang “produce” or create something from nothing? A bang has no creative power. It is merely an explosion that is generated from already existing substances. Expansion will occur in an explosion, sometimes resulting in an enormous blast radius in comparison to its initial state, but there must initially be something to explode and expand from. Using Hawking’s analogy, how could a hole or hill be made without first having dirt—or in the case of the supposed Universe creation, energy? Where did the dirt, or energy, first come from?

Although such a contention is logically impossible, Hawking asserts that quantum mechanics provides the answer. According to Hawking, at the sub-atomic level, “conjuring something out of nothing is possible, at least for a short while” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). Particles “can appear at random—stick around for a while and then vanish again to reappear somewhere else” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). Since this happens, theoretically, in the sub-atomic world, then according to Hawking, the Universe could have popped into existence from nothing as do these particles. How, exactly, it follows from quantum particle generation that spontaneous Universe generation is possible is a mystery, especially without any empirical evidence to support such a contention. Further, how, exactly, would spontaneous energy generation work without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., that energy cannot be created or destroyed in nature, but can only change forms (see Miller, 2007)? If the Universe—all nature with all of its space, energy, and matter—came into existence on its own from nothing, the First Law would be violated.

As will be discussed, Hawking firmly believes in the immutability of the laws of nature and their application to the Universe as a whole. So, he would not wish to contradict his firm reliance on the laws of nature by holding to a theory that would violate one of those laws—and yet, his position (i.e., all energy coming from nothing) requires such a violation. Notice, however, that he contradicts himself on this matter. While he wants to believe that everything came from nothing, as his own statements imply, the alleged popping particles are actually already in existence and merely disappear and “reappear,” jumping around to different places. Thus, the ultimate problem with the atheistic position remains. Where did these particles originally come from? And where’s the empirical evidence that these particles that pop in and out of existence could stick around for the alleged billions of years of our existence, instead of the “short while” he asserts is possible? He does not explain. The truth is, there is no empirical evidence to verify the theory that sub-atomic particles could pop into existence and stick around for long periods of time at all, much less develop into a Universe over billions of years. That being the case, how would we expect Hawking to press the matter further? He cannot press what he cannot prove, and therefore, he moves on without further presentation of evidence. He condescendingly alleges, “Unless mathematics is your thing, this is hard to grasp, but it’s true” (“Curiosity…”). So, we are left to just blindly take his word for it and trust that he has the answer—though he will not share it.

So is Hawking's theory on how something can be created from nothing without violating the laws of physics.

Pure speculation on his part.

Thank you for your completely unscientific smackdown of science. Just because you know the word "quantum" does not make you a scientist.

P.S. thank you for letting me know what is possible and what is impossible in science. We can just shut down that supercollider now. 1oldminer says it's impossible, so let's not waste money on that sort of research an more.

"The God particle"

The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media,[61] after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?[62][63] While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest,[63] many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of Quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction and gravity, and the ultimate origin of the universe.[61]

Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,"[61][62][64] but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."[62]

A renaming competition conducted by the science correspondent for the British Guardian newspaper chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best from among their submissions: "The bottom of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential and is often used as an illustration in physics lectures. So it's not an embarrassingly grandiose name, it is memorable, and [it] has some physics connection too."[65]

Second verse, same as the first. A little bit louder and a whole lot worse.

So all of science is negated because it doesn't make sense to you. As usual. 1oldminer argument #2a.

When science gets the answer to "Question A" it will only lead to more questions, which will in turn only lead to more questions. Which apparently means to you that we should stop asking the questions. 1oldminer argument #6b.

Care to drag logic into it? Oh wait, you just used that one in the other post. Gotta let it rest a while before you bring it back out.

2+2=5?
Posted on April 16, 2011

I was watching a debate in which a man named Lawrence Krauss tried to prove that God is not necessary for our existence. He argued against the evidence for God that was being presented by William Lane Craig. During Krauss’ attempt to debunk Craig, he claimed that two plus two equaled five – “for extremely large values of two”. Krauss’ mention of this feat of mathematics was designed to refute Craig after he quoted philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse on morality. Ruse stated that “a man who finds it acceptable to rape and kill a little girl is just as wrong as the man who claims that two plus two equals five. Dr. Michael Ruse is an atheist.

I’ve heard this claim before. In the past I took it on faith that if mathematicians said it, it must be true. But, after hearing it brought into the great debate between evolution and intelligent design, I decided I would take it upon myself to find out once and for all if 2+2 could indeed equal 5.

It all goes back to something we all hopefully learned in grade school. Remember that little trick in elementary math called “rounding”? You take a number with a decimal number after it and “round” down or up. Example – 1.1 can be rounded down to be just a 1. Also, a 1.9 can be rounded up to be a 2. This is merely for convenience sake. It’s a practical trick to make it easy to do certain mathematical functions but it has no basis in reality. It’s just a trick.

According to Lawrence Krauss, this little trick challenges the very existence of God – along with a quaint little notion called logic. In fact, “rounding” has changed the very meaning of the word meaning. It has taken with it, in it’s destructive path, all the established principles upon which science has bothered to found itself.

In fact, the origin of man is at stake.

Why would a little thing like “rounding ” have anything to do with the origin of man or the principles of science? Why is it so destructive?

I’m glad you asked. Let’s look. The equation is 2+2=5. Krauss said we have to use a 2 that has an extremely large value. This means that it is NOT just a two. It would be a 2.1 or a 2.2 or a 2.3 or a 2.4. This last one just happens to be our ticket. Let’s substitute 2.4 for 2 in the equation 2+2= x. Then we will round up and watch magic. We have 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8. Now lets round all the numbers in the equation. 2.4 is rounded down to 2. The answer to the equation, 4.8, is also rounded. In this case, it rounds up to 5. So instead of 2.4+2.4=4.8, we now have 2+2=5.

This is the magic upon which Dr. Lawrence Krauss stakes his argument AGAINST the suggestion that it is always wrong to think it is acceptable to rape and kill a little girl.

Anyone can see that the real numbers in that equation are 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 and that 2+2=5 is imaginary. The real number is 2.4. The 2 is imaginary. The real number is 4.8. The 5 is imaginary. So based on real and NOT imagined numbers , the real number 2 PLUS the real number 2 EQUALS 4 – not 5. In fact, 2.4 PLUS 2.4 does not equal 5. It equals 4.8.

This whole point of Krauss’ breaks down. His suggestions are absurd twists of logic.

You are avoiding my response once again Foob..I never said you should stop asking questions but to simply to accept Hawking's explaination on how the Cosmos came into being without the need of an intelligent designer simply because he knows more about abstract mathematics than we do or even Dr. William Craig does

And what if they do find the so-called God Particle..there will still be more fundemental questions raised..no you're right I'm obviously not a scientist nor am I phycist but I think placing faith on an very expensive and powerful super collider is not likely going to answer the ultimate origin of the cosmos. The most likely thing they'll find if they find anything will be another class of elementary particles that have some importance but not the final answers.

2+2=5?
Posted on April 16, 2011

I was watching a debate in which a man named Lawrence Krauss tried to prove that God is not necessary for our existence. He argued against the evidence for God that was being presented by William Lane Craig. During Krauss’ attempt to debunk Craig, he claimed that two plus two equaled five – “for extremely large values of two”. Krauss’ mention of this feat of mathematics was designed to refute Craig after he quoted philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse on morality. Ruse stated that “a man who finds it acceptable to rape and kill a little girl is just as wrong as the man who claims that two plus two equals five. Dr. Michael Ruse is an atheist.

I’ve heard this claim before. In the past I took it on faith that if mathematicians said it, it must be true. But, after hearing it brought into the great debate between evolution and intelligent design, I decided I would take it upon myself to find out once and for all if 2+2 could indeed equal 5.

It all goes back to something we all hopefully learned in grade school. Remember that little trick in elementary math called “rounding”? You take a number with a decimal number after it and “round” down or up. Example – 1.1 can be rounded down to be just a 1. Also, a 1.9 can be rounded up to be a 2. This is merely for convenience sake. It’s a practical trick to make it easy to do certain mathematical functions but it has no basis in reality. It’s just a trick.

According to Lawrence Krauss, this little trick challenges the very existence of God – along with a quaint little notion called logic. In fact, “rounding” has changed the very meaning of the word meaning. It has taken with it, in it’s destructive path, all the established principles upon which science has bothered to found itself.

In fact, the origin of man is at stake.

Why would a little thing like “rounding ” have anything to do with the origin of man or the principles of science? Why is it so destructive?

I’m glad you asked. Let’s look. The equation is 2+2=5. Krauss said we have to use a 2 that has an extremely large value. This means that it is NOT just a two. It would be a 2.1 or a 2.2 or a 2.3 or a 2.4. This last one just happens to be our ticket. Let’s substitute 2.4 for 2 in the equation 2+2= x. Then we will round up and watch magic. We have 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8. Now lets round all the numbers in the equation. 2.4 is rounded down to 2. The answer to the equation, 4.8, is also rounded. In this case, it rounds up to 5. So instead of 2.4+2.4=4.8, we now have 2+2=5.

This is the magic upon which Dr. Lawrence Krauss stakes his argument AGAINST the suggestion that it is always wrong to think it is acceptable to rape and kill a little girl.

Anyone can see that the real numbers in that equation are 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 and that 2+2=5 is imaginary. The real number is 2.4. The 2 is imaginary. The real number is 4.8. The 5 is imaginary. So based on real and NOT imagined numbers , the real number 2 PLUS the real number 2 EQUALS 4 – not 5. In fact, 2.4 PLUS 2.4 does not equal 5. It equals 4.8.

This whole point of Krauss’ breaks down. His suggestions are absurd twists of logic.

Even at the quantum level where particles are thought to "pop in and out of existence" in the briefest of instant...they must exist in some state of existence even if they are not in this particular state of existence..nothing can be created from nothing into something...let alone a universe without raw materials..not even space and time...for matter nor energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change from state into another.