Total nonexistence of everything a human brain could understand is a bummer. ^^;smearyllama said:
Really deep and complicated question
- Thread starter TonyVonTonyus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nothingness is impossible for our minds to completely understand because we apply labels to things. The act of applying labels like "nothingness" immediately makes even "nothing" into something that can be quantified or qualified.
I say "Nothing" and then nothing becomes something by virtue of me placing a word to it. Eerie.
I say "Nothing" and then nothing becomes something by virtue of me placing a word to it. Eerie.
Depends on how you define "nothing".TonyCapa said:
There isn't anything in the universe as we know it that is "nothing". Even empty space is something.
To answer this question definitively, we'd first have to understand what the universe actually is, and if anything exists besides the universe. Let's tackle these problems one step at a time, shall we?
Just gonna throw out a different answer for a change, and suggest that the universe may act like a circular standing wave, with the points of high amplitude and those leading up to it being the expansion of the universe, and then the reverse. There then may never have been a beginning, as it is (best described as) a circle, though there would be points at which it was/is a singularity.
Hey, I'm just throwing it out there.
Hey, I'm just throwing it out there.
Well if, before there was anything, there was nothing... true nothing... no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no anything... no universe and therefore no universal constants, no speed limits, no fiddly numbers that are a little more than three, and basically no reality.
IF we accept this utter lawless nothingness, this chaotic chasm of things that begin with 'cha' then we can accept that nothing was stopping it from bursting explosively into existence. And, because the universe is just the type of bubble of reality to do whatever it darn well likes, as soon as it realised nothing was stopping it from popping into existence, it popped the hell into existence and didn't care who knew it.
At least this is the official line from, if not scientists, then people who wear labcoats and use big words like scientists.
IF we accept this utter lawless nothingness, this chaotic chasm of things that begin with 'cha' then we can accept that nothing was stopping it from bursting explosively into existence. And, because the universe is just the type of bubble of reality to do whatever it darn well likes, as soon as it realised nothing was stopping it from popping into existence, it popped the hell into existence and didn't care who knew it.
At least this is the official line from, if not scientists, then people who wear labcoats and use big words like scientists.
Isn't there something in string theory about dimensions smashing together and causing the big bang? Like, all 11 dimensions?GundamSentinel said:
I hated the string theory chapter in science class. It made my brain leak out my ears.
Well theoeretically, a primal chaos is not only a valid explanation, but is also present in a fair chunk of non-abrahamic religions we looked at in my high school "Study of Religion" class. The idea that the deities simply came into being from a chaotic reality, and that anything that is created in the confines of our physical world is no longer subject to the creation-destruction pattern of the primal chaos (so there was chaos, from whcih sprung order, which, being order, was no longer affected by chaos and became a permanent universal state).TheSnarkKnight said:
EDIT: Oh yeah
OT: Who said there was ever a 'nothing'? All matter and energy may have existed in a different dimension, a different state that we haven't encountered yet, or it may be a product of a universal law that we don't yet understand. So on one side, who said there had to be nothing? And on the other, who said nothingness demands that it remains that way?
My guess? Nothing was there. But isn't "nothing" actually something in its own way? (This argument makes sense to me, personally, although confusion may be experienced by some, which is probably justified.)
The way I figure it, everything is cyclical. The matter and energy didn't spring into existence from nothing, it just moves and reforms into something else. The big bang happened and scattered all of the matter in it. The matter spreads out from the explosion, but gravity starts pulling everything back together. Eventually, the mass will get so large, and all the matter and energy in the center so compressed that the whole thing explodes again. And there was not just one big bang to create the whole universe. If existence goes on forever, then there must be big bangs forming all over the place.
Why would there have to be nothing? If nothing was there then wouldn't the universe not exist to hold said nothing? Current theory states that the universe was infinitely small and just started expanding. All the matter/energy that will be was in that singularity (there was also anti-matter but that is not part of this explanation). It wasn't "nothing" it was just very small.TonyCapa said:
The thing about the Big Bang theory on the creation of the universe, is that there is a common misconception about it. That is, even the name "Big Bang" is misleading as it in some ways implies an explosion. An explosion is a release of matter and energy within a certain spacial area. For instance, if you light firecracker it explodes, releasing heat and gases. The speed of explosion and blast radius can be defined by velocity and distance respectively, because the event takes place within space, which provides a reference frame for such measurements.
The Big Bang was not like this at all. It wasn't as if there any space for matter to just pop into, because space didn't exist at all. Basically is as if the entire universe; all space time matter and energy, was wrapped up into a tiny little ball or singularity. So it's as though all space and time existed as a point source and suddenly unwrapped itself. So, the Big Bang was not a 'bang' at all, but more of an unfurling.
Where the singularity that our whole universe once existed in come from? Now that's the real question. There are theories that it got pinched off from another universe, but these are all just mathematical construct. I hope we discover the answer someday, because that would be pretty cool.
The Big Bang was not like this at all. It wasn't as if there any space for matter to just pop into, because space didn't exist at all. Basically is as if the entire universe; all space time matter and energy, was wrapped up into a tiny little ball or singularity. So it's as though all space and time existed as a point source and suddenly unwrapped itself. So, the Big Bang was not a 'bang' at all, but more of an unfurling.
Where the singularity that our whole universe once existed in come from? Now that's the real question. There are theories that it got pinched off from another universe, but these are all just mathematical construct. I hope we discover the answer someday, because that would be pretty cool.
Well, you assume that at some point there was nothing at all, just because you assume everything had to come from somewhere doesn't mean that the universe had to have some sort of starting point. You have to remember that the universe runs on mechanics we can't even begin to somewhat comprehend. We like to think we know whats going on, but we really don't So, for all we know, the universe has been around forever. We just haven't been able to prove it yet.
If the universe has existed forever, then it is not at all "old", since such a concept cannot apply.
However, I am quite skeptical of the very concept of eternity, and likewise am very skeptical that the universe has been around forever.
However, to answer OP's question in his own terms, it's simple: The universe would have to have been created by "another universe", or some engine of creation, possibly from a universe where the law of causality doesn't hold.
However, I am quite skeptical of the very concept of eternity, and likewise am very skeptical that the universe has been around forever.
However, to answer OP's question in his own terms, it's simple: The universe would have to have been created by "another universe", or some engine of creation, possibly from a universe where the law of causality doesn't hold.