Really deep and complicated question

[DanDeFool]

But if all there is is nothing, how do you make something?

Depends on how you define "nothing".

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?

 

[[.redacted]]

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.

 

[TheSnarkKnight]

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.

 

[Lightning Delight]

Ever heard of string theory? Colliding branes? There wasn't nothing, there just wasn't anything our brains could quantify. Hell, 'there' wasn't even there. Of course, that's all theory. We can't know it, we weren't there.

Isn't there something in string theory about dimensions smashing together and causing the big bang? Like, all 11 dimensions?

I hated the string theory chapter in science class. It made my brain leak out my ears.

 

[Blemontea]

their is more than one theory of creation, one idea has it that black holes transferred matter from one dimension to ours and then the galaxy started to form. that idea makes more sense than big bang theory to me so i follow it.

 

[astrav1]

Chaos. Now I'm just typing so I won't get slapped with a probation (Sorry mods) but yeah, chaos.

 

[Biosophilogical]

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.

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).

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?

 

[Danman1]

That's a big complicated answer. I'd suggest you get into quantum physics, preferably filtered through Morgan Freeman's kindly voice.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

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.)

 

[Lagslayer]

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.

 

[Baneat]

in well after David Hume

amidoinitrite?

 

[daemon37]

Why did there have to be nothing? I think you're wrong about that point.

Science has taught us that matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore all matter in the universe has always existed and will always exist.

 

[crudus]

At one point there had to be NOTHING in the universe at all because nothing had been created yet. There were no stars, planets of anything. There was no light because there was nothing to create it. There were no molecules or atoms or anything smaller. Now if there was nothing at all and we obviously have a universe now something must have been created. But if all there is is nothing, how do you make something?

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.

 

[TheMann]

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.

 

[Neo10101]

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.

 

[zehydra]

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.

 

[Porygon-2000]

My answer - as with all deep and mindbending and complicated as this - is yes. Just yes.

 

[Merkavar]

ok then where did all the somthing come from.

i think its just too far in the past for us to know at the moment.

also if the big bang theory is correct wouldnt before the big bang the laws of our universe wouldnt really apply so maybe at that point matter can be created and destroyed. but i think working from after the big bang onwards is good enough. do we really need to know what happened before the big bang?

 

[Agayek]

Is true nothingness even possible?

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the human mind is not well-equipped to properly understand the true meaning of a vacuum. It's simply too foreign a concept for us to wrap our minds around completely.

On topic, there was always something. It could be something beyond the scope of our understanding (which coincidentally could also be the thing we call God), but there always was and always will be something.

 

[TheSnarkKnight]

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.

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).

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?

I'm not sure if you picked this up, it may have been too subtle, but I did give a tiny indication that I may not support the idea I proposed 100%. But you are mostly correct, I was referring to certain non-abrahamic religions and, to an extent, it was more a commentary on the absurdity of the concept of nothingness. Then again, we are rapidly finding out that the universe is a much more chaotic place than we gave it credit for, so maybe my insane ramblings will turn out to have a hint of merit in them after all.