What came first, Nothing or Something?

originally posted by: DerekJR321
Funny.. I was just looking for videos about this last night.

I was asking from a scientific viewpoint, but unfortunately only found religious connections. My question was, if the big bang started it all, where did the matter from the big bang come from? The closest I got was "dark matter". Okay.. where did the dark matter come from?

Sometimes I wonder if we even really exist. We live in a reality that we create for ourselves.

The question of the "Big Bang", would most likely be, that it came from a previous "Bang". You could have like Bang, Crunch, Bang, Crunch, Bang, Crunch.....

It's like even a tiny speck of solid matter, in the void of the Nothing, wood able to fill a entire Universe, or at least so it would seem, I guess it's all in the details.

There's a lot going on, take a Black Hole, it does not destroy Matter, it simply take it apart down to the very basic components, and stores it with out all the wasted space. Some say time stops with in a Black Hole, that is a foolish thing to say, as if time did stop then nothing would ever happen. Hawking could never, hope of finding, his Hawking radiation. Oh, then take all the matter in the Universe and make one giant Black Hole, then time would stop for sure. But, wait if it stopped it could never Bang again, so no it would seem. it still does not stop time, even then. Now though, I'm sure as all the matter is back together again, it can not help it from Banging again, so we get, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, to Infinity, now everything that could possibly ever happen, has already occurred.

But it might not be a Bang Crunnch, it could be, Bang, Expansion, Bang, the Universe get so full of Matter it just Bangs again.


Yea, like the snake eating it's own tail.

a reply to: OOOOOO

If in the beginning all the matter that make up Our universe was gathered into one singel singularity (energy mass)... would that mean the singularity initially was a black hole, that lost its mass and expanded?

All the mass that made up the singularity would probably make one hell of a black hole.....

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: OOOOOO

If in the beginning all the matter that make up Our universe was gathered into one singel singularity (energy mass)... would that mean the singularity initially was a black hole, that lost its mass and expanded?

All the mass that made up the singularity would probably make one hell of a black hole.....

That is the general ideal, One massive Black Hole, The Singularity, it seems that once it has contained the entire Universe, it reaches a critical state, that it can no longer hold itself together.

Time, at that point seem to matter little, as there is no point of perspective, unless you were the One, beyond this Universe and having all perspectives.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: OOOOOO

If in the beginning all the matter that make up Our universe was gathered into one singel singularity (energy mass)... would that mean the singularity initially was a black hole, that lost its mass and expanded?

All the mass that made up the singularity would probably make one hell of a black hole.....

That is the general ideal, One massive Black Hole, The Singularity, it seems that once it has contained the entire Universe, it reaches a critical state, that it can no longer hold itself together.

Time, at that point seem to matter little, as there is no point of perspective, unless you were the One, beyond this Universe and having all perspectives.

Ok. I am fallowing.

But how did all the particles suddenly compress into the energy mass (singularity)?

What force caused all the particles that were scattered billions of light years apart to compress into a singularity?

It couldnt have been a black hole. Because if all the particles are scattered billions of light years apart... there is no black hole....there is no mass. Only a wast void of vacuum Space.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: OOOOOO

If in the beginning all the matter that make up Our universe was gathered into one singel singularity (energy mass)... would that mean the singularity initially was a black hole, that lost its mass and expanded?

All the mass that made up the singularity would probably make one hell of a black hole.....

That is the general ideal, One massive Black Hole, The Singularity, it seems that once it has contained the entire Universe, it reaches a critical state, that it can no longer hold itself together.

Time, at that point seem to matter little, as there is no point of perspective, unless you were the One, beyond this Universe and having all perspectives.

Ok. I am fallowing.

But how did all the particles suddenly compress into the energy mass (singularity)?

What force caused all the particles that were scattered billions of light years apart to compress into a singularity?

It couldnt have been a black hole. Because if all the particles are scattered billions of light years apart... there is no black hole....there is no mass. Only a wast void of vacuum Space.

The Universe is young, they are trying to look into the past and see what the Universe looked like, towards it's Alpha state, to me, the big question is what will the Universe look like when it reaches it's Omega state, what will it have evolved into.

We are not aware of the qualities of a evolved Universe, like is gravity constant, does it change, we don't know.

Hawking use to believe in the closed Universe theory, he now believes in the open Universe theory, he needs his Hawking Radiation proven to get his Noble, good luck, as far as I know The Cern has yet to create a Mini Black Hole. Even if it does, it would mean nothing.

The Black Holes are colliding, in the Universe and consuming each other, becoming larger, more powerful.

Billions off years is a short time in a Cosmic view, the Universe will go on for Trillions of years.

originally posted by: OOOOOO


Billions off years is a short time in a Cosmic view, the Universe will go on for Trillions of years.

Big Crunch, Big Chill, Big Rip...pick your poison...

a reply to: spy66

Stephen Hawking described it in a way that I can't forget. Comparing the Big Bang to the South Pole, he wrote that we can only go so far south before we can't travel any further south. With regards to what occurred prior to the 'Big Bang,' we can't 'travel' any further than that moment.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: spy66

Stephen Hawking described it in a way that I can't forget. Comparing the Big Bang to the South Pole, he wrote that we can only go so far south before we can't travel any further south. With regards to what occurred prior to the 'Big Bang,' we can't 'travel' any further than that moment.

Doesn't Hawking believe the Universe, just popped in from nowhere. It's hard for me to go down that road, as I believe in a Multiverse, with a infinite number of Bangs, with everything just going full circle.

In that way you could go past the most Southern Point, they are looking for the remanence of the previous bang now. But I think they have a few things wrong, like being next to another Universe, then we would be part of another Universe. I think, we are within other Universes, that's like turning left or right, you would enter different Universes.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Doesn't Hawking believe the Universe, just popped in from nowhere.

No. He argues that we can only 'see' so far into the beginning of this universe hence the 'South Pole' point I referred to.

ETA - sorry if I came over a bit arsey there. The multiverse ideas are interesting and yet they're currently like angels dancing on the head of a pin. I've been reading New Scientist for years and they've published lots of articles about the search for evidence. However, so far, they haven't panned out and that's fine because the value of science is held in being wrong as much as it is in being accurate.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: OOOOOO

Doesn't Hawking believe the Universe, just popped in from nowhere.

No. He argues that we can only 'see' so far into the beginning of this universe hence the 'South Pole' point I referred to.

ETA - sorry if I came over a bit arsey there. The multiverse ideas are interesting and yet they're currently like angels dancing on the head of a pin. I've been reading New Scientist for years and they've published lots of articles about the search for evidence. However, so far, they haven't panned out and that's fine because the value of science is held in being wrong as much as it is in being accurate.

Sorry, but it seens you are mistaken.
Quote, "According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?"

What is really asinine, is that,in the Multiverse they are are all talking about, they say you would be this in one, that in another, dead in that one, a king this one. I think that is all bull, I don't see it that way, you will never have a separate Universe just so you can have purple hair.

As for evidence, they can't even prove we exist, much less the Multiverse, heck it looks like this a Simulation, and the code it's written in, matches Binary.

They knew about the Atom, thousands of years ago in India. Rama exhale, Rama Inhale.

Quote "Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang: An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano"

"What came first, Nothing or Something?"

Neither.

Due to our limited 3-D thinking, things have to proceed linearly with a cause/effect pattern to make sense. Everything that exits in our reality are splinters of infinity that come from a singular point of "now" that exists outside of time.

What's interesting is that recent experiments suggest that reality doesn't exist unless it's measured.

a reply to: OOOOOO

In last year's New Scientist anthology, he was using the South Pole analogy.

What is really asinine, is that,in the Multiverse they are are all talking about, they say you would be this in one, that in another, dead in that one, a king this one. I think that is all bull, I don't see it that way, you will never have a separate Universe just so you can have purple hair.

I completely agree with this. Too many times, I've heard people claiming that anything we can imagine will exist in a parallel universe. It's juvenile fantasising isn't it? Elephants with popcorn eyes? Cotton scissors made from plastic flesh?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Dang
Where you been.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What's interesting is that recent experiments suggest that reality doesn't exist unless it's measured.

Well, we better start measuring right away.
Well I know I exist.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

Well I know I exist.

As what though??
The assumption is that you are a thing that exists along with other things.
Really you are the space in which all things appear.

a reply to: OOOOOO

But I don't know you exist...

If I can't see it, it's not a part of my reality...or is it?

The perceiver cannot be perceived!

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: OOOOOO

But I don't know you exist...

If I can't see it, it's not a part of my reality...or is it?

That which can be perceived appears to exist.
That which is perceiving does not appear to exist but no thing could have apparent existence without being perceived.

What I am saying here is in fact very simple: our seemingly ordinary consciousness, the one that perceives the events of our daily life, is in fact extraordinary, universal, eternal and divine. It is the Ultimate reality of all things and of ourselves, the Absolute. This is the open secret, for all to see, known only by one.

www.francislucille.com...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: spy66

Stephen Hawking described it in a way that I can't forget. Comparing the Big Bang to the South Pole, he wrote that we can only go so far south before we can't travel any further south. With regards to what occurred prior to the 'Big Bang,' we can't 'travel' any further than that moment.

I agree that science can not see past the speed of light when it comes to what is Beyond Our expandning universe.

Because the speed of light is According to special relativity... c is the maximum speed at in which all matter and information in the universe can travel.

According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light and gravitational waves) travel in vacuum.