for there to be nothing , there has to be something to be nothing.
2006-07-17 12:16:05 · 11 answers · asked by herman 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Because of the nature of the ultimate singularity (i.e. the first perceived as the big bang) it would have contained not just energy and mass but also time. So before the big bang is a non entity (like big brother contestants). What created this singularity is often assumed to be some sort of god, often suggested by people who also used to believe in theories such as creationism and intelligent design, not saying Darwinism is perfect but to be frank it is the current best theory for the origin of all species.
However i believe that to look at what was before the big bang we need to look at what will happen to our universe in the end.
Some people think that there will be a big crunch and all matter, energy and even time will return to the original singularity. So it could be suggested that because of the of this circular nature things will eventually repeat themselves. The universe and everything will repeat big bang to big crunch big bang to big crunch. This way it could be assumed that before the big bang before the singularity there was the collapse of a universe that could have been identical to this one or entirely different.
Of course there is no proof it is merely speculation.
2006-07-19 06:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by will 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's the problem with the Big Bang - it tries to say you get something from nothing - which violotes all known scientific laws, and common sense.
A singularity is not nothing! Some people say something along the lines of 'there was a fluctuation in a quantum vacuum'. But then the fluctuation did not occur in nothing!
The existence of the universe clearly points to a creator - the Creator in fact.
The Big Bang hypothesis relies on unwarranted assumptions, and has many flaws. New things are invented to plug the gaps - for example dark matter and dark energy, for which there is no experimental evidence, but are required to support the Big Bang hypothesis.
If you are interested to know more - a mixture of technical/non-technical - check out Answers in Genesis.
2006-07-18 01:21:55 · answer #2 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are lots of things we don't know. We don't actually even know what nothing is, we can only define it in negative terms. Obviously, nothing does not exist here and now.
To say that the Universe began with a singularity, or God, is no explanation, as we cannot define a singularity, or know God.
We are creatures of space and time. It is possible that this limits our understanding of anything "outside" space and time, if that phrase has any meaning at all.
Scientific explanation begins with the big bang, which may or may not be a correct hypothesis, but seems to be the best we have at the moment. Anything "before" that is not Science, but is belief, imagination, faith, fantasy etc.
If you really want to pursue the idea of nothing, go to
www.nothing . com.
GOOD LUCK!
2006-07-17 23:18:18 · answer #3 · answered by hi_patia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There wasn't just nothing..ofcourse there had to be something...and that something was singularity which was a condensed mass of infinite density.
2006-07-17 16:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by Chris 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look the answer up in the National Autobahn to the Night Sky. I don't understand it completely myself. Sorry!
2006-07-17 14:04:32 · answer #5 · answered by boyrambo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well,the big bang came from the remnants of a collapsed universe.
2006-07-17 12:19:45 · answer #6 · answered by That one guy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pardon?
2006-07-17 12:19:13 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It didn't come from nothing, it started with a singularity.
2006-07-17 12:29:16 · answer #8 · answered by DDK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The something is GOD, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
2006-07-17 15:03:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
outside of time there are no good reasons why a universe should not exist
2006-07-17 12:27:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋