Argument Against an Infinite Past

[MindForgedManacle]

My main issue is more with the way physicists are naming some things. Max mentions that Krauss talks about 'nothingness' having mass. But what Krauss has said (in other instances) is that empty space has mass, so clearly in that case he (and some other physicists) are calling empty space 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. When the terms are used properly, it's all well and good. However, some physicists (Krauss is the notable one) have made the mistake of pushing it too far. For example, he once said before (I'm paraphrasing) that science has shown that something can come from nothing in reference to the production of virtual particles. However, they come from (I believe) vacuum energy, which is clearly something (i.e it exists), so Krauss' usage is misleading at times. He (probably accidentally, as far as I know) is conflating the usage of the term nothing in physics with the usual meaning of the word, which is "no thing".

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that 'nothingness has mass', when he's referring to empty space, or virtual particles being creatio ex nihilo.

Nothing big, just a slight annoyance with that misleading usage.