Does infinity exist?

The way i see it is you can never have nothing so the universe must be infinite for example if the universe did end at a point (as in distance) there would be nothing after it but that nothing is somthing because you can name it and describe it and the nothing would go on forever and ever and would be infinite the only way it would stop is if there was somthing but then that somthing would be somthing so it would still be infinite. this may sound stupid but it make sense to me

 

Time did not being at so called big bang, there never was one.

 

Okay, so what are you supposing happened? The current accepted theory, and has been widely tested and is agreed among scientists, of the Big Bang is how the universe started. What do you say happened?

 

Today my engineering professor went on about how for all energy, there is an opposite energy for it as energy cannot come from no where. An example of this is how we throw a ball into the air - it gains potential energy, but comes back down to Earth as a result of gravity, as kinetic energy. Therefore the total change in energy is zero.

Thus, he explained how all energy in the universe must have an opposite energy stored somewhere (or something like that lol) that makes the total energy in the universe zero - therefore using this as an explanation for how the universe could have came from nothing.

 

the act of throwing the ball in the air gives it kinetic energy. Potential energy is what it has while it's at rest in your hand.

Yet, the quote above says your professor himself said energy cannot come from nowhere??

 

I didn't reiterate what he said word for word so I guess I missed something somewhere. Let me try with a different example: When you increase your elevation, your potential energy increases, therefore if you fall, kinetic energy is released.

 

Ok, so what you're getting at is that the net energy in the universe is 0, but if that were due to the positive and negative energy cancelling each other, wouldn't that imply an "infinite" balance between the two, since neither can dominate the other?

I'm not really sure if were arguing for or against the concept, but for the record en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

 

Us naming it and describing it as something doesn't mean it 'exists'. I could name the air in front of me to be a unicorn, and describe the way it looks with scrutinizing details, but it still doesn't exist.

There's no such thing as 'negative' energy, in the sense that your professor is trying to elicit. Is there a negative energy for heat? Can I add negative energy to an object with heat energy to make said object cold? It would sure call for a new design of the refrigerator. Or is it that we only take heat energy from a certain object to make it cold?

It's just like with light. To get complete darkness, you need no light. There's no 'negative' wavelength of light that should cancel out another positive wavelength of light in order to achieve total darkness. If there was, surely we'd be able to measure it.

He's basically saying that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It simply changes forms.