In the beginning there was nothing…which exploded. Or was there never nothing?
I don’t think the theory is that there was nothing. I think it was that everything was in one mass… that exploded.
Is it possible that what you’re calling “the beginning” was actually the implosion of a huge black hole viewed in reverse?
(I’m sure the professional physicists will race to ridicule this suggestion. :o )
Well, the way I heard it, the whole universe was in a hot, dense state – then nearly 14 billion years ago, expansion started.
Wait…
My understanding of current physics is that one can begin with nothing, and then equal amounts of matter (and energy) and antimatter (and antienergy) can spontaneously come from it.
The net total is still zero, so that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy has not been violated. The main problem with this idea, as I understand it, is that there seems to be a lot more matter than antimatter in the universe. But they’re working on that.
We don’t know what the beginning was, just what happened after. Except for the first few infinitesimal fractions of a second, we haven’t figured those out, yet.
Anti-matter is not anti-energy. Both matter and anti-matter have positive energy, which becomes pretty obvious when you bring them together.
In response to the OP - look at Zero Energy Universe theory.
Probably never nothing, but no one really knows. We can’t observe the Big Bang itself, and certainly not anything before it. There’s a number of hypotheses about what was before the Big Bang; Wikipedia has a good rundown of the major ones. I’m partial to the Eternal Inflation idea myself, but as far as I know, there’s no evidence for it.
You must be one of those drooling autotrophs…
The beginning was also the beginning of time. I think it was something like a femto second 10^-13 s or so upto which the laws of physics did not apply.
I don’t think there is a consensus, there are several theories. I believe Hawking said that the whole universe can arise from nothing and he’s math backs him up. I cannot conceve how something can start without time so that one baffles me, but Hawking is way smarter than I am. On the other hand, I do like the idea of an eternal multiverse as proposed by Brane theory. The matter is far from settled.
To be more precise, there are laws of physics which governed the behavior of the very early Universe; we humans just have no clue what those laws are.
I’d never heard the phrase before reading the Wikipedia article above and I know it is not something we vote on but I like the Big Crunch idea.
As said above, it is thought that time began with the big bang, so there was no “before”.
However, from a philosophical point of view, there is still an explanatory gap there, the same explanatory gap if the universe/multiverse was eternal: why does anything exist at all, and why does this exist? I don’t know if the OP is getting at that, but that is often what is meant in this context: a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.
Yes. I understand that there might be rationale that nothing can’t exist because of the way things are. But why are things the way they are? It’s the big question.
Because if they weren’t, you wouldn’t be around to ask the question.
That’s an important pragmatic point, but doesn’t really answer the question.
It would be like if I asked why humans have such advanced language skills: the answer “Well if they didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to ask that question” would clearly be wanting.
Science doesn’t answer why. It’s the big mistake people make when they ask about science.
It does answer “why” when it just as easily means “how”.
“Why did the apple fall?”, “Why are plants green?”, “Why are gold atoms heavier than helium atoms?” Are all “why” questions that science can deal with, because you can swap why for how and the question still makes sense.