Zero Energy

I was reading "A Brief History of Time" last week, and came across Hawking's statement that we don't have to explain where energy came from, because there is both negative energy and positive energy, that exist in equal amounts, and so the sum of energy is zero.

What do the atheists here think about that statement?  Do you think that his statement is valid and that we don't have to explain where energy came from, since there isn't any energy?

Of course, I had a good laugh when I read this, but I am asking sincerely about your beliefs.

Thanks.

  Which part did you find amusing or unbelievable? Negative and positive energy? That they sum to zero in our universe? Or that we don't have to account for the origins of energy if the net energy in our universe is zero?

  Which part did you want clarification of?

Sorry, this is the part that I want opinions on:

"that we don't have to account for the origins of energy if the net energy in our universe is zero? "

  That sounds like his opinion. Generally, amoung Big Bang cosmologists, the flat energy state of the universe says many interesting things, none of which are more than speculative without a GUT.

   However, it is used as tentative evidence that the Big Bang might have been a quantum event analagous to VPP. Such a quantum event, like VPP, would result in an positive/negative energy balance. A flat energy universe like ours.

What is VPP?

  Virtual Particle Pair's.They violate conservation of energy for brief periods of time, but the the net energy of the universe remains unchanged before, during, and after their existance.

 

Oh yeah...sorry, duh, we already argued about that.

By the way, we left off talking about the "decaying third particle" and how it goes backwards in time to give itself energy, according to your statements, if I remember correctly.

What scientific basis is there for that idea? Remember that it is my position that energy in virtual particles is borrowed.

  For the third particle creating a closed temporal loop? It's the Standard Model explanation. Specifically, a collision of those two particles produces a third particle with those properties. Ask a particle-physicist if you want the nasty math and gritty details, but it's basically because it explains VPP production in a way that is consistant with the Standard Model.

   Yes, I know that's your position. You keep saying it borrows energy, but never where the energy comes from. Then when I point that out, you quote sources off the web that say something utterly different than you think they say.

    Virtual particle pair production has been a well-known and understoof phenomenon for 50 years now. You might think it borrows energy from some other, unnamed source. You're the only one. Particle physicists (those zany experts) think otherwise.

 

Wow, that wasn't very nice. Why the hostility? I thought we were having a nice conversation. Did you get annoyed that you can't point me to something backing up your position other than "nasty math"?

If it is just a hypothesis, say so.

If it is so well understood and for so long, surely there are some websites explaning it to a simpleton like myself.

P.S.

The energy is borrowed from existing energy in the Universe.