Really deep and complicated question

[illas]

There are a few nice replies above concerning the Big Crunch so here is my quick summary/analysis. I hope it offers you some insight (however small!) into what is one of the most exciting and perplexing questions in Astrophysics.

The Big Crunch

-The big bang was when quantum gravity (all matter, strong and weak electromagnetism, gravity, electromagnetism) expanded outwards from the singularity to yield the universe.
-The residual energy of this expansion is still in existence today, pushing the universe outwards/apart. -It is *very* slowly running out as matter and the inherent gravity begin to take their toll.
-At some point in the future, this energy will have completely dissipated (and resolved as potential matter).
-The mass of matter within the universe will then be able to create a gravitational pull great enough to cause the universe to crunch inwards.
-Eventually, the gravitational pull will be so great (and the matter so crunched) that it will overcome the neutron and electron barriers, causing all matter to return to a singularity.
-Eventually, the condensed matter will pass an excitation threshold and expand - a big bang.
-This then has/will cycle for all eternity.

Thus there never was nothing, no "chicken before the egg" or vice-versa: just a constant state of flux.


I like this theory largely because it's cyclical, and the fact that it neatly sidesteps a lot of awkward questions

It's important to stress, of course, that this is very much *just a theory*, and one that we really can't hope to investigate until we can account for the amount of matter in the universe (and given black holes/super black holes that may be all but impossible).

As for problems concerning time/matter before the big bang (assuming no big crunch ) they're mostly caused by semantics and/or limitations put on our conception of such events by words:

Time is the measure of changes in/of energy (including matter).
Before energy and matter existed; time did not exist. There can be no "before" the big bang (re: the conventional model) because there was no space-time until the big bang . Ditto matter.

As with most of Physics, this post probably causes more issues than it solves...

 

[SilentCom]

This is a scientific/philosophical/religious question. Choose one field and immerse yourself in theory or belief.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

There has never been nothing according every single theory (That I know of) on the creation of the universe.

In most monotheistic religions, their god existed and gave birth to the world.

In the Big Bang theory, scientist believe that space itself is expanding and carrying our galaxies along with it, spacing out everything and cooling the galaxies. Billions of years have caused us to eventually expand to the regions we exist in today.

Honestly, neither answer is probably correct, but I'll take the scientific idea with some evidence over a single celestial body creating everything in a few days.

 

[Liberator XIII]

This is the biggest unanswered question in physics today, as you can see from all the different responses. I just want to throw something not question-answering but related out here. Sorry it's incredibly long - I have a TL;DR if you want it.

Note, whenever I say 'universe' I mean everything we live in, be that the universe, multiverse or whatever.

For people asking why there had to be nothing, there's a strong scientific argument for that. It was either 'nothing' or an infinite universe. After all, if there is no 'nothing', something has to be here at all points - it has to be eternal, in both time and space. If not, then nothing existed before and/or after the universe, or nothing is outside it.

But, given any number of particles and a long enough time, there are always random fluctuations in everything, primarily in the quantum world, but this translates to atoms occasionally colliding, sometimes transferring energy. Eventually 2 may collide with enough energy to fuse (like in a star - it's still possible outside one, just waaaay less likely). Fluctuations are incidentally how about 95% of the Big Bang inconsistencies (antimatter/matter ratio, non-uniform density etc) are explained.

So, given infinite time, eventually some atoms will happen to bump into each other in the right combination and with the right energy, and 'create' something. This might just be a random lump of particles, or might be some chocolate, or might be a Van Gogh, or might be something the exact size and composition of Paraguay.

Sometimes it will be a brain. A living, conscious brain, capable of thought - only for an instant, as it's floating in the debris of space and has no way of sustaining itself, but a conscious brain nonetheless. The more complex these fluctuations are the less likely they are, and so the longer it would take to see one. A fluctuation as complex as a brain would take far longer than the universe's age to come about - but we have infinite time in this example.

Random fluctuations are far more likely to produce these brains ('Boltzmann brains', after the guy who came up with this) than everything in the universe that we can see - and by 'far more' I mean very roughly 10^53 (1 with 53 zeroes on the end) times more likely. Point is, in a universe with infinite time these fluctuations happen far more frequently than the fluctuations required to make the observable universe (about 10^27 atoms, each with the correct velocity and energy, versus 10^80), and so we would be far more likely to be 'Boltzmann brains' than who we actually are, humans living on Earth. The very fact that we're here disproves that, which in turn disproves the infinitely-timed universe. Oh by the way, even a self-sustainable brain is overwhelmingly more likely to fluctuate in than our universe - it's just overwhelmingly less likely than a non-self-sustainable one.

In addition, in a universe of infinite space, an infinite number of Boltzmann brains fluctuate into existence at each point in time (assuming an infinite number of particles too - and infinite space/finite particles is just not even plausible), again disproved because we're here.

So, there must not be an infinite universe, ergo, there must be such a thing as nothingness 'before' or 'after' the universe(s) or a nothingness in the 'space' around them. It isn't space, before or after obviously, but beyond where the universe ends, beyond where those words mean anything.

I'm sure there are some points in here that can be argued, and I don't know if that was my misunderstanding on the subject or genuine inconsistencies with the author of this argument's argument. I'll try to dig up the book on this subject, and counter any counter-claims if I can. I'm also fairly sure the grammar might be a bit crap, it's 2 a.m. and I've been playing Portal all day, so clearly a physics lecture was the right course of action. It's SO much better with Stephen Merchant as the voice in your head narrating all this.

TL;DR version - in an infinite universe, most intelligent lifeforms will just be floating brains born from random fluctuations. No, seriously. As none of us are floating brains, this is not the case, so the universe ain't infinite. So there must be nothing somewhere or sometime. And lolphysicsat2amafterportalallday.

 

[kannibus]

Prevailing theory is that it just kinda blinked into existence. No not because of God or something, but simply cuz of random chance.

 

[Condor219]

We have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of whether there was always something, or whether there was nothing at some point.

It's funny, because a logical dilemma arises. Logic tells us that there couldn't have always been something, that at one point it had to be created to get there. But scientific logic tells us that we have always, and will always, have the same amount of matter/energy in the universe. There really isn't a right answer at this point, and likely there will never be a "right" answer.

 

[Dango]

In before God.

In before Singularity ?

I was going to say the exact same thing. Hawking theorized that there wasn't nothing. There was energy in the form of subatomic particles. Higgs Boson (God Particle) and the like.

And where did those come from (Note: I'm not arguing, I'm asking because I don't know and honestly want to learn more about this theory)?

 

[Ima842]

Well, God wanted an Apple pie.
A serious answer: the little particle that exploded had to be created, by something or someone, we don't know yet who or what, and we might never know.
EDIT: another answer is that the standard laws of time & physics may got created when our universe got created.

 

[Merkavar]

i like M theory. where there are 11 dimensions and when they collide they create a big bang. or atleast that my understanding of it.

 

[Simili]

I thought the whole point was that this "universe" is discrete and if there was anything before the singularity from which it came it has no bearing on this particular segment of time.

The whole "matter can't be destroyed or generated" is from classical physics. We have now got to the point where most answers boil down to "our brains aren't built to understand this shit, so we won't bother explaining it".

Personally I rather like the fact that if you accept that the 7 days of the story of genesis are not necessarily 7 24 periods but just 7 lumps of time with no defined length, then genesis = big bang theory.

 

[Rayne870]

Ok, I thought of this really deep and complicated question (well in my opinion anyways). Now I'm absolutely certain I'll never get the right answer yet I continue to ask myself the question and anyone I ask usually freak out at the complexity or just refuses to acknolwedge the question as being serious.

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?

big bang wasn't creation, it was an expansion of compacted matter into empty space.

 

[loc978]

This question is a never-ending tunnel of semi-reason that can be summed up in the question "...and what came before that?"
The way I look at it, an ant may as well ponder how the magnifying glass that focuses the sun's rays to snuff out her life came into being. The ant that could comprehend the origins of the magnifying glass would be a rare thing indeed, if such is at all possible. Same goes for us and understanding for certain the origins of the universe.

 

[Phlakes]

Time isn't linear. That's how.

 

[Luke5515]

These sorts of things you can't just explain on some website forums.
Who knows, maybe there was always something,
Maybe the nothing just did make something,
Maybe what happened can't be explained by science, religion, or anything else.
Maybe, it just is.

 

[Dragonpit]

The universe started with hydrogen, and everything came from there, but I believe there was always something.

 

[Ima842]

OP is quite correct despite everyone saying that there was never nothingness. Nothing exists forever so at some point it had to 'not exist'. And no, the universe can't be infinately old either as if that was the case then there would have been plenty of time for other civilisations to have filled the universe, they'd be everywhere we looked.

So in this particular sphere of existance there was a point where nothing existed, probably not even this dimension, and then there happened a cataclysm that brought forth what we consider to be existance.

There's also a possibility that what we consider to be reality doesn't actually exist and that we are all just dreaming each other.

You got to remember that time is relative, maybe at one point there wasn't time, space nor laws of physics.
That last idea maybe true, or maybe we are a really intelligent A.I.

 

[ThunderWalrus]

You just gotta try to avoid thinking about it or your head might explode. We obviously came from something, but then again, we had to start at some point. Its a perpetual cycle of WTH thinking. Fun to discuss, but bad for the sanity.

 

[0_Insomnis_0]

In before God.

In before Singularity ?

I was going to say the exact same thing. Hawking theorized that there wasn't nothing. There was energy in the form of subatomic particles. Higgs Boson (God Particle) and the like.

And where did those come from (Note: I'm not arguing, I'm asking because I don't know and honestly want to learn more about this theory)?

I'm not quite sure where i picked up that titbit of knowledge. Maybe a talk be physicist Lawrence Krauss on YouTube? I'd look there, or read some of his stuff. But I must admit, I'm more of a biology guy myself, that really isn't my field. If I find something good, i'll post it here.

 

[bigwon]

Mr. Metaphysical:
"for there to be something there has to be nothing, but what if there is neither?"

0.0

definitely defies our current knowledge of physics in any case...hehe...so there i take leave with my equally insightful response on the matter...;D

 

[Saelune]

The only impossible I will accept is the begining of existance. Believeing that the begining of existance is a bigot who blames everyone else for his own mistakes I will not.