50 GFY Physics Majors.

:)

Haha, I only minored in physics, double-majored in business administration & engineering (programming-focus).

I'm not surprised man. Like I said earlier in the thread, there are a few people in this one that know more about the situation than one would think. This thread is awesome.

particles are 'something', they aren't 'nothing'. and of course the question is - where did the particles come from?

i believe this is beyond human capability to understand, Einstein had the same belief, doubted we'd ever find out.

no.

the person who explained things that way to me is much smarter than you and me put together.
i tried to share with you a very reasonable and very simplified version of what you think nothing is/was.
you're the one confused about what nothing was.
no need to try and use einstein to support your lack of understanding a basic example, although that's pretty fucking funny.:1orglaugh

Sadly, without space for this to happen in, or time for it to happen during, nothing mixed, combined, smashed, created friction, created any proper ratios or environments.

The collision of two universal membranes (warning: brane theory is largely tenuous) would have released enough energy to allow matter to dominate anti-matter during the cosmic expansion of another proto-universe (ours). Anything short of this energy release runs into the chicken/egg problem.

However, remember that chicken/egg (causality) is only a problem in OUR universe, with OUR physics. That doesn't mean that causality isn't even a THING in another universe.

i simply related an explanation given to me to help understand that nothing is not the right word to use. there's no proof that before the big bang there was nothing. the op stated that if there was nothingm then define nothing..., i supplied a reasonable answer to that.

i'm not claiming to be a physicist. i'm not stating this is my own explanation, i'm not misquoting einstein to prop up my sharing the example.

i simply shared an analogy on what nothing could very well be in this sense.

The answer isn't 'nothing' in the sense that you understand 'nothing' within the context of our universe. This, thankfully, allows you to state that something can come from 'nothing' simply because it is only our universe that we know for a fact is bound by the process of cause and effect.

You cannot think of concepts outside of our universe using restrictions that can only be proven to exist in our universe.

If A, then B > A, therefore B

Is only logical within the context of how things function in our physical surroundings. Outside of our universe? Who knows and, more to the point, who can prove it? :thumbsup

tl;dr: the inability for 'something' to come from 'nothing' is a boundary attached to our universe and thus, it is incorrect to assume outside of our universe this is the case.