I'm familiar with what Krauss has to say, but I was under the impression that there's still plenty of debate in the theoretical physics community on the issue. With the contradictions between general relativity and quantum mechanics and the fact that there's no empirical evidence for string theory, everything about the early universe is difficult to model and predict. I don't really have my fingers fully on the pulse of cosmology, though, so I'm definitely open to being proven wrong here.
Yeah, but that's the point i'm trying to convey to.....there is no such infinite past, not even hypothetically, because that's been settled. The universe is 13.72 billion years old, and there is a 'start' point. However, there is not going to be an end point, as the universe will atrophy into a 'nothingness' forever....sort of like going forward by half every step.....eventually you don't actually move any further, but you don't quite come to a full stop. That will be the fate of our particular 'flat' universe.
The math/calculations shows that there was a 'something' ie. 'start' and the math/calculations also show that the start came into being from a 'nothingness', ie. quantum fluctuations that produced the universe we know. 'Nothingness' is paradoxically something i suppose if you want to wax philosophically....but 'nothing', i mean the absolute absence of anything we know of, in the universe, as far as matter, time, energy that know of, is what the universe was born from....which is why, physicists such as Lawrence Krauss asserts and is backed up by evidence in asserting, that 'something' came from 'nothing'.
Edited by VICanucksfan5551, 15 September 2012 - 10:34 PM.