I felt like writing about my favorite theory of the origin of the universe, so here goes:
Our universe is composed of precisely 50% negative energy and 50% positive energy. In other words, when you add it all up, the Universe is nothing! To show that the universe came from nothing we need to show that something can produce equal amounts of positive and negative energy spontaneously. Scientists have confirmed that Quantum Fluctuations, or the spontaneous origin of a particle and antiparticle from nothing, do indeed occur. Energy, and of course, matter, since it is derived from energy, may be produced without violating the Law of Conservation.
Of course this all depends on the laws of quantum physics, so where did they come from? Emmy Noether proved that Laws are derived from the symmetries
of physics. A symmetry is something that is the same no matter which way it is viewed. A complete void is the same no matter which way it is viewed, and therefore must contain at least some of the familiar laws of physics.
I have detailed this argument further with references on my website:http://www.godriddance.com
Why do I favor this view? It solves a number of problems. For one thing, if it is the case that something simply always existed, as some atheists and most theists think, then why should that something exist instead of nothing at all?
Secondly, it allows me to give a Stephen-Hawkingesque answer to the question of time (in spite of his original theory in A Brief History of Time
being proven wrong): Time is an imaginary construct we use to compare things changing and going in to different states in relation to one another. Without those things there to make a comparison, and with no conscious beings, there simply was no time. To ask what came before the void is to ask, "What is north of the north pole?"
So I'm sitting here at my house at 3 AM, writing about the origin of the Universe, and hoping I'm making sense. Am I?