Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which has been tested and confirmed.

at what part exactly?

He can't verify his outrageous claim, therefore it has no merit.

All he can do is say "No, U!"

He should not enter that sauce into the county fair, because it is weak.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows these type of violations in short bursts.

I mention this not because I am an expert, but because I took your question, did a simple Google search, and found several answers that are supported by observable fact.

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

Thank You! So the theory of zero energy is the key to this theory! At least that is something...

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

Honestly, we probably can't really expand this any further until we have a grand theory that satisfies both relative theory and quantum theory at the same time. There are 4 natural forces(we know of) in the universe. Gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. Our physics explains how these 4 forces work in the universe.

Relative theory explains very well the motion of what we consider large bodies focusing on the force of gravity. But when you try to apply the theory of relativity(gravity) to very small scenarios, some things happen that relativity cannot explain. To simplify, gravity acts weird at really really small scales, and relativity breaks down. Inversely, quantum theory does very well at explaining things that happen on a very small scale, by looking at the natural forces other than gravity. Electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces in nature. These forces have great effect at very small scales where gravity is essentially insignificant. But these 3 forces are so weak at large scales that the physics again breaks down. Quantum mechanics in turn cannot explain some things that happen on very large scales, mostly because gravity is the dominant force there.

Which is also why quantum mechanics could actually serve as a better model than relativity for explaining the Big Bang because it's describing the universe as a tiny singularity where quantum physics works better. Gravity doesn't have much if any affect in a singularity, which is why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily violate relativity.

That said.... we need a new model that explains all 4 natural forces simultaneously.

When we finally discover the "Theory of everything" that can explain physics correctly at all scales of reference, we'll have another explosion of knowledge and information even bigger than when we proved the relativity and quantum theories. And it will happen eventually. Hopefully in our lifetime. It may very well be that we need to include another force(s) other than the 4 that we know. Perhaps it will require new physics to include what we now know as dark energy/matter/weakly interacting massive particles. That's my guess.

Thanks fish for a great post. It's entirely too much typing for me however I agree and I do think that dark energy or matter is going to play a role with tying the theories of the small and the large together.

We don't even know what Dark matter is made out of? How it acts? It's like what 85% of the universe, correct? Basically its a way we are giving mass to something that has no mass?

When we figure out what dark matter and energy is or how it interacts with the universe.....it would seem we are ready to make a big leap in science and change not just our understanding of the universe but our current life's.

No, actually dark matter clearly has mass. Lots of mass. Detectable mass, which is where the 85% figure comes from. It just doesn't exhibit any electromagnetic attributes. Which is why we can't "See" it and detect it like normal matter. It doesn't emit or absorb light at all. It seems that the only thing detectable that it does have is mass(and maybe weak force).

Define irony:

Someone with no background in science who feels they are qualified to discredit the theses of brilliant individuals who have spent a lifetime contributing to a compendium of knowledge.

Right.

That is my main argument to people who just.cant.get.it. People can accept EVERYTHING that comes from science, computers, satellites, medicine, OUR ENTIRE WORLD, and we KNOW it works. You know, because THAT IS HOW WE WHERE ABLE TO CREATE THESE THINGS! And then people dedicate their entire lives to knowing about how things TRULY work, collaborating all around the world, in the past and going into the future. And when they talk about anything that is at odds with stone aged myths, all the sudden, the 'science isnt in' or any other number of excuses, we have heard them all. Are you kidding me?

The other day, in a single conversation. I had an otherwise intelligent person tell me;

1. 'they found noahs ark, they found it!'
2. Carbon dating has been disproven
3. Humans have only been around for 2000 years
4. The bible was written in the 1800s, after science had taken hold, so science has proven the bible true.

This is why people who understand science, and how it really works, get so exasperated all the time.

Come on.

Actually it's more like 25 % for dark matter, 65% for dark energy and the rest is ordinary matter....or close to those percentages

Yeah, I had a guy once tell me that our history had been artificially compressed and that 'known history' all took place within the past 600 years.

People say weird stuff.