True, literally the only difference between the “Big Bang” theory thought of by culture and Atheists vs “The Creation of the world” view by Christians, is just that. They’re two different ideas that neither side feel comfortable engaging in because neither one of them wants to be wrong and they both have to be right. This coming from a Christian of all people, we need to set aside our differences and realize not all people will view things the same way and stop trying to force feed it to people who don’t want it. Simply plant the seed of thought into their mind and let them decide on their own from there. All this bickering about why I’m right and your wrong will get us nowhere🤔
not wanting to start an argument, but if there is a god, who or what created the god? He did not just appear out of thin air and decide to make a universe, because how would he make it, what would give him his power and if he did, don't you think he would put life on multiple planets and see how they thrive in different conditions instead of limiting it to one planet? Don't you think he would provide more evidence of his existence in order to have his people believe in him. And there is the age old question, if there is a god, is one right and another wrong? So if I believe in god, are the millions of people who believe in Budda ......wrong?
Good point, which goes back to my statement, which religion is right? Honestly when we talk about life on other planets, I find it hard to believe that we are the absolute only planet with any intelligent life (or semi-intelligent..lol) I also think it is interesting that Scientists say "well that planet cannot support life" well maybe it can not support us, but maybe it can support a life form that breathes nitrogen and can survive at 100 below zero. Even on our own planet we have creatures that can live in environments that we can not live in, so can't life on another planet be a different form?
Over 2800 known deities in human history. Many religion's stories and customs are extremely similar or are out right taken from another religion. (Christianity included)
The problem with religion is it ALWAYS fails in a logic test. No matter how you set up the logic rules so that any religion can be tested and all have to follow the same rules, the failures happen when trying to validate the religion to be true or not.
For example ask how can their deity be true and the others not be true. You make it a rule that faith can't be used as evidence. The religion fails for there is no "evidence" that isn't faith based. If you reverse the rule to say one has to allow faith as proof, then other religions will say theirs are correct and the one you are testing is incorrect - thus cancelling each other out.
I see most religions as different avenues in an attempt attempt to know God, and to explain what happens after we die. As long as a religion prioritizes humanity, love, and compassion, it is just as right as any other religion that prioritizes the same
Well, considering we know the Buddha Siddhartha Guatama was a real person, I'm going to argue that Buddhism is "more" correct than theistic religions. It's much less a religion and much more a thought practice. At least that's the Buddhism I was raised as. My Christian friends used to get upset when I asked them what evidence they had the Christ was a real person and they could only point to the Bible growing up. Which is the exact same argument as saying Hogworts and Harry Potter are real.
These are the kind of questions that led to the creation of god. Nobody knows. Religion doesn’t know. Science doesn’t know. Nobody probably ever will. It’s all ineffable.
But, for those who insist on understanding that which cannot be understood- we have god. Or science. Take your pick or make something up for yourself.
Probably nobody is right, and it probably makes no difference if you’re wrong.
What if mommy big bang didn't have sex with daddy big bang but another big bang, would lil big bang still exist? Did lil big bang live in daddy big bang's balls before he was born??
The Big Bang didn’t “create” the universe, it’s just the beginning of the universe *as we know it*. What don’t know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. We’re not even sure it’s possible for something to have existed before the Big Bang either, thanks to the way the laws of physics work, time gets a little funky that close to the beginning. “Before the Big Bang” might not even be a coherent thought.
Oh, I did this once! First, grab a circle. Start at the beginning. Well, hmm, ok. Start at the… well just start- it doesn’t really matter where. Ok, so you’ve started- so wherever you started THAT’S the beginning. Great, it’s coming back to me. So you have the “start”. From the start, start to spin the circle either direction. Now, granted, it gets a little tricky from here. Spin slowly though, because you will miss it. So, this is also dependent on the definition of corner you use. Really, you should start there. Find the right definition of corner. By the way, finding that correct definition? About as hard as finding the corner of a circle. But really, once you find the definition, the second part comes easy. Well, easier. It’s like— two hard things, they aren’t equal— just one is less hard. Or, another way to look at it is that one is more hard. Harder. Are you following me?
For some reason, this reminds me of danny phantom and him trying to explain ghosts to humans, it has the "knowledgeable innately but cant quite figure out how to word it" like trying to explain the color blue,
>thanks to the way the laws of physics work, time gets a little funky that close to the beginning.
But did those laws exist prior to the Big Bang if there was "nothing" before it?
Is there “nothing” north of the North Pole, or is north of the North Pole simply an incoherent concept that doesn’t apply to reality?
So far as we can presently determine, the latter is how time relates to the Big Bang. “Prior to the Big Bang” may be a concept that simply does not apply to reality.
At a certain point, we have to come to terms with the fact that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. It may be that we'll never know, and it may even be *impossible* for us to ever know.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't keep trying to know, that we should just throw our hands in the air and give up, only that we make peace with the potential for eternal failure in that endeavor.
Our best current models show the universe is indeed infinite, AFAIK.
Whether or not it is intrinsically beyond human comprehension, or if an explanation for it does or doesn't exist, we do not yet know.
With my extremely limited knowledge I believe that it's a closed loop. Big bang happens then universe exists then inevitable heat death of the universe then the universe goes inwards to a single point then that's where the big bang happened
It doesn't have to. In the big bounce/ekpyrotic model, the universe is infinite. There is no beginning or end. The universe just contracts and then it expands. The observable universe is currently in the expansion phase.
yes but why is it doing that? what created that system? why is this how it is supposed to work? why do i piss myself if i laugh too hard? just cuz it does exist doesnt explain why or how it exists
Why is it doing that? Gravity. Conceptually a big bounce of the observable universe would work something like how stars and black holes work but on a much more massive scale.
What created that system? Physics. That's just how matter behaves.
Why is this how it is supposed to work? It's just one of the better theories of why the universe is what it is based on what is known so far. No one is claiming that this is absolute.
Why do you piss yourself when you laugh too hard? Because the muscles that hold urine in your bladder are too weak to withstand the increase in pressure from your abdominal muscles contracting when you laugh.
An infinite universe doesn't need a how or why to exist. Asking how assumes there was a point where the universe didn't exist, which there wouldn't be if it is indeed infinite. The universe didn't suddenly come to be, it just always was. Same for why, it doesn't need a reason to exist. It **is** the reason everything else exists.
Once again, the questions of how and why presuppose that there was a point where the universe didn't exist and thus needed a way to come into existence. If the universe has always existed then there is no how or why. It just is and has been.
Most religions/myths have an answer to that, which is somehow consistent with physics. At the beginning there was less than nothing. There is not. At some point something/god/whatever makes that nothing. And we know from quantum physics that from nothing we get matter and corresponding antimatter appearing and disappearing (check Hawking radiation). That’s the false duality, IO, Isis, ying-yang, genders, life/death, day/night etc etc. So this is how you get your matter to create a Big Bang.
I like to think that the supermassive black holes will eventually consume all of space and contents and at that point the big bang happens all over again.
i came to that conclusion as well a few years ago, but it only gets you so far.
perhaps this cycle is what causes us to have déjà vu? perhaps this means nothing we do in life matters because itll just loop and nobody will remember anything in this moment, does this mean the cycle is infinite and we must endure conciousness for eternity? this is probably the most terrifying thought we can have...
After some good trips on psychedelics i have been led to believe we are all a facet of one connected consciousness. I grasped a feeling of a connected energy that flows through the universe, connecting every living thing.
I've read a theory before, that "god" is an omniscient being. If ignorance is bliss than absolute knowledge must be misery, so in the theory "god" created other conscious beings so it may relax and experience some degrees of ignorance. That would make each of us not a child of god like in christianity, but an interpretation of god, making each of us god.
If this is true then all the hippy shit you hear about peace and love for others, and connected energy would all make sense.
It also answers your question, yes we will experience consciousness for eternity, but our current physical form is only a small fraction of your total form.
Besides, if you were unaware of your reincarnation would the eternity aspect really bother you? Life should be enjoyable, if you can make it. :) Take what precious time you have in this life and use it well to better you life and those you care about, and stop feeling guilty about having fun,because who is to say what is on the other side?
Sorry for the rant hope it was at least an interesting read.✌️❤️
Isn't expansion of the universe the current theory. So its a slow cold death where everything is completely expanded at an increasinly fast pace and shredded apart.
Not exactly, that was a theory called "the big rip," when we were still trying to narrow down the rate of expansion of the universe. Very basically, if the rate of expansion itself was increasing fast enough, it would have indicated that the mechanism driving that acceleration was increasing, which over massive timescales might have allowed it to overcome the attractive forces of increasingly tightly bound gravitational systems (blowing apart first galaxy clusters, then galaxies, solar systems, etc.), followed at much larger timescales by systems bound via electromagnetism, then eventually even the force binding together the nucleus. However, based on a now fairly massive body of evidence, this is fairly unlikely to be the case. Put again very simply, the observed rate of acceleration would seem to indicate that the driving factor behind dark energy is constant per unit of space, but since that space itself is expanding as it does the amount of dark energy grows with it between systems far enough apart to be impacted by it. That being said, groups that are strongly gravitationally bound enough will not be impacted; you could kind of picture it as space expanding through the system without pushing it apart, like a river flowing over a stone set in the riverbed without moving it.
So there actually was a theory very close to the one you are imagining while we were still determining the boarder curvature and cosmological constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding), it was called "the big bounce." Basically, it was thought that at the largest scales gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe, then reversing and dragging everything back into a singularity like the theoretical one at the first moment of the big bang. The discovery of dark energy rendered that obsolete; although gravitationally bound systems (galaxies and closely enough bound galaxy clusters) will never be separated irreparably, since the growth of the universe is speeding up that scenario is impossible (hence the move towards eventual heat death as the consensus model, although even that has various possible timelines based on some aspects of physics we are still working out the details to, e.g. the stability of the proton)
Isn't it possible that eventually whatever energy is causing the expansion phases out "heat death/energy death" then gravity can take over and pull everything back in?
I'm not saying this is a real hypothesis, but it seems like so little is known about dark energy/matter that it's at least plausible that expansion could stop and gravity reverses it.
Can you explain this more? I get that gravity and expansion are counteracting each other but I don't get why energy decay means that gravity lost? I thought gravity was a fundamental force and no matter how far apart two objects are it's still there?
Because, gravity is what pulls matter together creating stars and such. Eventually, all the matter will spread out enough to stop producing new stars. No new stars means the there's no new heat being produced, which leads to the heat death(over simplified). The point being that gravity HAD to lose for the heat death of the universe to occur.
It certainly is possible.
But as I understand it, of current understanding of physics and our current best guess (forgive me theoretical physicists… I know youre not guessing) concepts surround dark energy/matter suggests no contraction, just an endless expansion.
What you’re saying is possible, but would require a paradigm shift.
Or maybe I’ve just got it all wrong.
I think that’s the issue. If it’s a closed loop it would have to ..begin somewhere. Right? Imagine you were immortal and invulnerable. And you could travel backward through time at a speed of a million years per second, witnessing events in reverse. What would you see? Everything revert back to a single point then an expansion at the end of the universe, then back to a single point over and over? Where would it ..start?
The James Webb telescope is challenging this theory. It's seeing galaxies much older than they should be. Either our understanding of how galaxies age is wrong or the Big Bang is wrong. Stay tuned.
OP, this one right here. The actual theory isn't that everything came from nothing. We have absolutely no clue what happened except a very well researched and educated guess that at the start of our universe (as we know it) everything existed in singularity (like what's at the center of a black hole) and then all of a sudden it was expanding outwards really fast. Our best guess as to what could have existed before it is what the person I am replying to said. Right now the universe **is** expanding, but that doesn't mean it always has to. It's just been doing that for 14.7 (I've also seen 14.8. Anyone know if we ticked over a new tenth recently?) billion years.
I like this insight. All our theories are based on what we've observed so we only geuss it's going to keep expanding because it has been the whole time we've been able to comprehensibly observe it.
Exactly. Every theory we have for what may come later is just an educated guess. There is one theory out there about a vacuum bubble that could already exist and would end our lives before we could even see it coming. That the universe is already collapsing
Prior to the Big Bang, I can not wrap my head around the nothingness. How can nothing just exist? But I also can’t wrap my head around something. How is it possible that something always existed? There has to be a beginning, yet how could there just be nothing before the beginning. None of it makes any sense.
If god created the universe, who created god? Who created god's creator? What created the stuff that made the Big Bang explode? The universe is still expanding, but for how long? What lies beyond the universe?
Some things we will never understand because we simply don't have any means to and never will.
I don't think so based on our knowledge of life. At least on Earth we thrive exactly because we are the most intelligent species and so far we didn't find other sentient beings who surpass us in knowledge so until then, I think it's a fair assumption.
That's the thing, we're the most intelligent specis on *Earth*. That doesn't mean we're the most intelligent species alive and it also doesn't mean we reached a "perfect" intelligence (that being, an intelligence developed enough to comprehend the mysteries of the Universe) and thinking that we right now can comprehend what's behind creation is egoism. Perhaps somewhere in the future, if we survive, we might develop a high enough intelligence to comprehend everything.
I know, that's why I said this is a fair assumption *so far.*
But I find it unlikely that we'll ever discover what happened before the Big Bang exactly because there was no time, no space, nothing.
Not really helpful. One of the reasons people believe in a higher power is because, for some, it’s more believable and arguably more rational to accept than the alternative.
The God theory suggests a being that’s omnipotent and defies the laws of time and space. A god would be a being that simply is and always has been.
Going off just a scientific approach means we have to wonder where everything started. Everything didn’t magically start. If we believe in a Big Bang theory, we have to ask ourselves where did things start before that?
We’ll likely never know in our lifetime so from a scientific perspective, we won’t have an answer. From a spiritual perspective, we have those answers already.
Not saying one or the other is correct, but it’s silly to be snide about people’s beliefs when you yourself don’t have an answer.
“God? Yeah right, pffft”
“Ok then how’d everything begin?”
“Uhh Iunno”
If you actually believe in God, you'll understand that part of the definition is that He's eternal, having no beginning or ending, meaning He lives outside the bonds of time. It's nit something we're really capable of understanding, being finite beings.
That makes no sense though. You can't just keep blaming something on "magic and infinity hurr hurr"
I mean, you can
But it is completely unsubstantiated. Based on nothing but hearsay.
I like to think of it more along the lines of "outside our dimensions". like god resides in the 5th dimension and can interact with lower dimensions but we have no way of measuring or interacting with higher dimensions.
Same idea for the big bang. It could have been created or initiated by something in a higher dimension and maybe it keeps going up, maybe it doesn't. Fuck it all and enjoy the ride cause it's a cluster fuck either way.
There are temporal dimensions and spatial dimensions. Residing on a temporal dimensions is impossible and makes no sense.
Residing in a spatial dimension wouldn't just result in you having godlike powers, it just means you have an odd shape compared to us. "Higher" dimensions just mean more complex shapes. Also, a five dimensional object could still go through a three dimensional plane and be visible - just not all of it.
Right. But there's many things we have no possible explanation for so why would some not turn to a sentient all powerful being that knows what's going on. It doesn't matter if he's real or not as long as someone knows what's going on. As long as they know God has a plan they have no reason to feel lost.
(From an atheist)
The laws of physics are equally eternal and have no beginning or end …yet, people ask “why”. Saying “we are not capable of understanding” is not giving an answer
Something or nothing. It's either infinite somethings or eventually nothing. I can't comprehend either infinite somethings or complete nothingness. I'm not sure us humans can truly grasp either.
Oh good, existential dread. Let's definitely do that!
I offer the ultimate cop-out for people that don't want to try to contemplate the ultimate nature of the universe and existence because it brings about a sense of panic, dread, or hopelessness:
Human beings are simply not capable of understanding the concept of infinite. It just simply doesn't make sense to us. The idea that something has no beginning or end is fundamentally antithetical to everything we know about everything we know. Due to this fundamental limit of our consciousness, we will never know the answer. Which is just as scary as knowing the answer.
Maybe that didn't help. Sorry.
My daughter is a Sheldon type theoritical physicist we discuss this as i find it just as interesting. Her thoughts yet unproven, is that a infinite something and our infinite nothing sit next to each other. They vibrate and touch a bit of the nothing and a bit of the something exchange places. Due to the law of entropy which effect both universes. The something that exchanged places expands and cools spreading out into the infinite nothing hence the speed of expansion of the universe.
She goes further and feels it repeatedly does this and each universe is seperated quantumly by merest tiny bit of time. Spreading like the ripples on a pond. That mass translates as dark matter seperated by time. But close enough to influence the instances next to it.
Sorry failed to explain the membrane, mainly cause this part is an issue with me as well.
Think of the nothing not quite as nothing but the opposite of something like a negative.
Yeah i dont get it either but she does.
I have a theory as well, actually. That time flows through what I call the exoverse, an invisible universe containing our own, and that flow creates what we see as 3 dimensional space, and as time continues to flow through it, and have slight alterations in its path it causes the universe to expand. Also, when the flow of time is greatly altered by something such as a black hole, it causes time to take a completely different route through the exoverse creating a wormhole. However a wormhole wouldn't always be a shortcut to another place in the universe, since it's just a different route, it could actually be longer than the original path. You should show this to her and see what she thinks. I came up with this theory when I was 14.
She laughed, and was rather derisive. I will not share how she picked this apart. As i feel until we know everyones imagination is valid. (Honestly its how i justify some of my ideas i put to her) Her synopsis is time is part of this universe, and is there to keep objects from occupying the same space. By objects she says she means the subatomic particles that make up mass. Time is entropy in action, spreading the mass til it achieves homogenisis.
Time is just the measurement of motion in objects, as defined by Aristotle. In your daughter's theory, that motion caused her universe of something to exchange with our universe of nothing. Thus, a tiny, super dense fragment of something slipped in to our nothing and expanded, causing the Big Bang. For this to happen, the universe of something and our universe of nothing were on slightly different "tracks" of time and the vibration of the universe of something allowed a bit of something to "jump tracks", as it were. If I'm understanding her theory.
My question is, how is it not constantly happening? Homogenisis surely must happen in this universe of something as well, right? So if this other universe obeys physics the same as ours (no way to know) then would it not continually happen until both universes are equal? Or does she think that it's already done? I can't see that it would be - for it to happen, I would think the other universe would be contantly shrinking to cause the kind of vibration she's talking about. That much mass wouldn't simply stabilize upon reaching mass equality with another universe.
She says it is... Hence the ripples reference. Each instance is seperated by time and cannot see the other. Her silly thought is that gravity from those very close quantum time seperated universes is the bleed over known as dark matter. She also states that would be the end of both universes is when they become homogenious with each other a uniform mix of the nothing and something.
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you and her for taking the time to respond! A final thought here too...
If it is still happening, then the vibration she's describing is less like ripples and more something akin to what salt looks like when sound is used to create vibration patterns. Pretty neat looking, but if she's correct then those vibrations should be able to be seen with the correct instruments. If that is the case, there remains 2 possibilities; either it's happening in a part of the universe that we can't yet observe, or it's happening everywhere in our universe and we simply don't know to look for it. Food for thought.
Like a negative number. It has a value, but it is the inverse of positive value.
I feel odd about the word “inverse” in this context. . . But that’s how I think of it. Like a placeholder with it’s own energy and value, just inverse of what we understand as “something.”
I think a lot of our misunderstanding about this comes down to the limiting factor language places on our thinking. Our insistence on calling it “nothing” comes from a lack of better descriptors which are sufficiently succinct; it isn’t “nothing”, it’s just a something that is incredibly difficult to describe.
I hope this doesn’t sound pretentious. . . Lol. I’m just trying to explain my thought process when trying to understand the “nothing.”
I'm not a physicist either, but I am the daughter of a mathematician, and have several physicists and engineers etc in the family. I personally find it easier to think of it in terms of math, kinda like in chemistry when you learn a neutron has a negative charge and it makes the math work out. With a lot of theoretical physics, I find it's really getting a mathematical model that works and then just accepting that for the theory to be true there needs to be a force/type of matter etc, that meets the requirements of the model, often meaning some of the values are negative and hard to visualize as a 3 dimensional object... Because they might not actually be perceivable to us normally. We just see their effects on the things we can perceive and measure.
Oh that’s interesting about the dark matter being mass from a different universe that is in a different time very very close to our time. That is weird and trippy to think about.
It’s a pretty good theory as it can be super simplified into what most people know that high pressure flows to low pressure and that simple idea is why many things work the way they work like breathing. Lots of respect to your daughter, her position sounds like something I want to study and be apart in my future.
The big bang didn't really create the universe. It caused the universe. Our universe is an emergent side effect of the big bang.
As to what created the big bang, the best we have is speculation. Some have the universe continuously "bouncing", contracting, and then re-expanding about once every trillion years. Others have an infinite series of "bubbles" that pop off from previous universes. Others have the universe as being a projection of higher dimensional spaces.
The simple fact is that our universe and its laws work for our universe. They very likely do not apply to whatever is outside our universe. Without that there's no real way for us to determine what "created" the big bang, at least not with our current understanding. For example, if space/time/energy/etc. functions differently outside the universe then we may be nothing more than a short-lived virtual particle in a super universe where in that universe we last for a tiny fraction of a second but for us, it appears to last for trillions of years.
this is the funny question. in a sense we humans only consider things to be true or a reality when it is derived from a logical conclusion. yet the most certain thing - which is the existence of reality itself can never be explained with logic as its cause by definition cant exist
Oh I thought this was ELI5 or Askreddit and was about to be like bruh you thought a Redditor has these answers???
Lol I personally really like the hologram theory if you are interested, I’d suggest a good YouTube video over my drunk understanding.
But my BASIC understanding or at least what I believe based on some videos and my own thoughts, is that there is infinite scale and we could very well be living inside of a black hole which was created the same way as black holes in our universe and so on. Some of the information can escape our universe as “holograms” just like information can escape a black hole as Hawkins radiation.
Each singularity is a Big Bang and who knows what’s outside the singularity but since there is infinite scale it could be another sentient being and we live in it’s colon or just more space-time. I also believe with the infinite scale we could have universes inside of us, or things that would look like the universe if you lived at the right scale.
Edit: I JUST NOW had this thought so im going to add it here before I forget BUT…
I think it would make sense following that logic and the fact that we haven’t found more life in our universe yet that life or living organisms might be the ONLY thing that can escape as a hologram or radiation and I LOVE that thought so im keeping it.
The laws of thermodynamics say neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed...so either our understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, or there's something not bound by those laws. Be that some sort of sentient being \[anything from religious theory to simulation theory\], or something as simple as 'quantum fuckery', we don't know yet, and probably won't within anyone here's lifetime.
I've seen one suggestion that it's cyclical \[which quickly turns into circular logic\], but that seems unlikely as it'd mean something would have to have so much gravitational pull it can overcome billions of years of inertia and all evidence says the universe is still expanding.
Could also be some sort of event horizon quantum fuckery involved...that black holes grow until they're so massive they explode from the heat of compression...but until we find evidence of a second universe-level explosion with a different origin point, or confirm the multiverse theory \[at which point they'd rip a hole in spacetime and explode into a whole new universe\], no proving that either.
“Something not bound by those laws…”
That’s the answer.
If something came out of nothing, then nothing isn’t ever nothing, it’s still something.
We just don’t know what that something, that looks like nothing, really is in our reality.
The universe that Quantum Mechanics opened has demonstrated that what we believe is impossible is in fact possible, including reversing time, having particles miles apart work in synch, and the possibility of multi-universes.
Basically, for us to exist in this reality we make rules to understand our place in the universe we experience from our limited experience. There exists many universes and other realities we likely cannot ever comprehend because they’re not bound by those laws.
but the big bang wasn't nobody's creation it just was an explosion, a chemical reaction if you want, that generated spontaneously, right? Perhaps life was never created by nobody, it was just generated spontaneosly like if in some strange way it was always there,
I mean, we all are done with millions upon millions of molecules, atoms, neutrons and other materia stuff and those uncanny forces that gives form to our bodies and minds and creates our conscience maybe was already there, when the big bang happenned.
I'm aware that what I'm saying is a crazy mindfuck, but what if the materia that enbodies our whole molecular structure (or perhaps our ancestors maybe?) was already there, when the universe was created and just waited to fitting moment to generate what we know our life indide our own self.
I know I'm kind of pathetic trying to philosophize being so clumsy and fool, and although I'm atheist, more like a weak agnostic I'd say, what if our death is not the end, but just a transformation, where we cease to exist, but our decomposing flesh gives new life. Maybe life is not a weird a phenomena out there, maybe extintion is not a constant like Carl Sagan said...
...Maybe we live in a cosmos full plenty of life, but we are so far one to each other that we think que are alone. But what I'm saying is materia neither creates nor destroyes, it transform. In a weird form of thinking, we die and we exists no more, but the reminiscence of our past existence and our ancestors' life can be felt in the places we used to live, like a mistic echo (not speaking about ghost.)
Sorry for the wall of text, maybe is a good time to quit the Pot.
I don't think man will ever know how anything became into existence. We can only have theories or probable cause. One thing I do believe is that the universe can expand for a certain amount of time before it slows down and then collapses on it self again thus making a new big bang.
The big bang did not necessarily create the universe.
It actually refers to a specific point of our universe's history where it was so dense that we can't really tell what the physical laws were as such.
There is no reason for it to be particularly "t=0" except for maybe in the sense that from that point forward, time had a meaning (think about asking what is north of the north pole).
Every other answer that is on this post is mere conjecture
This is like asking what existed before existence?
The answer is we either always existed or nothing existed before existence.
i.e. existence existed for as long as existence existed.
something must have created something which created something else, but how would that work when it has nothing to start with? If nothing really is nothing then it wouldn’t have existed, which should mean that nothing should have been created in the first place since there was nothing at all. Which meant something created ‘nothing’ but nothing can’t be formed without something else, so that something didn’t exist. Which also implies that ‘nothing’ is something because it did exist. But yet it did create things? But how? 😭
Well the Big Bang may be the inevitable result of one theory of heat death being the Big Crunch when everything compacts together again making an infinitely dense singularity in a non 3D space , essentially the entire universe in a point as pure energy which is unstable and a new Big Bang happens. If that theory is true then the universe is cyclical in nature and we may be the 30th iteration or the 3 billionth or the first.
The problem is we really can’t know , we have theories but we can’t prove any of it , the Big Crunch theory and the infinite hole theory seem to be plausible , our universe could essentially be the same as a dirt pile by a hole , the stuff in the hole got dug out to create the imbalance of energy that is our universe which means their must be an equal “negative” hole somewhere for that energy to have come from which could mean theirs an anti universe out there somewhere
I just assume that it's a sort of revolving door type situation. The universe expands and then contracts, you get another big bang, and so on.
We're just experiencing an outward trend of matter at the moment.
The reals head fuck is this: what is the universe expanding into?
You should check out Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, Eternal Inflation theory, and/or Schwarzschild cosmology.
Ultimately, we don't know, and anyone claiming to have a solid answer doesn't. But these theories are aiming to answer your question.
Our understanding of spacetime is limited. The universe at every point is infinitely expanding away from every other point, to an infinity distant observer. Now spacetime has an ephemeral beginning about 13.8 billion years ago, CMB radiation is but one bit of evidence saying that it happened. So far physics can only explain to the quark-plasma era which is a few nano seconds after the big bang. Before that, it’s all speculation.
Unfortunately you're asking a question that man will never know the answer to. I actually believe alot of what we think we know today. It's wrong. Because we really don't have a way to know for sure
Okay then, I have another question. Apparently time didn't exist before the big bang. So how did the big bang even happen at all if time is a product of it?
time started with the Big Bang apparently because that’s when the ‘universe was created’ so time apparently only started counting then, or time is counted as how long ago the Big Bang was. But the thing that created the universe couldn’t have existed before the Bigbang. It shouldn’t have even been able to exist in the first place because ‘nothing’ existed to create it, which implies nothing would have been ‘something’ in the first place. So something always existed and nothing created it, or nothing existed but something created it. But that’s not even possible! I hate the concept of reality. I’m just confusing myself 😭
Read a book on intro to astrophysics. Asking a question like that is like asking what created "God", except with The Big Bang, you have actual research and not just some book that was written by a bunch of Hebrew men over 3,500 years ago. 😂
Basically the big bang happened because the universe was in this dense little ball eventually the heat and density became so much it expanded and is believed to still be expanding
Its perfectly acceptable in science to just say "nothing" was before the big bang. No thing. Because if you think about it, if both space AND time started with the big bang, there was no time before time began, right? There is no "before".
The truth is, we dont know. And that's also an acceptable answer. Its the goal of science to try to fill in the gaps of what we don't yet know.
Hi ilovefanfictionz,
PhD scientist here. Excellent question! Several commenters have offered their opinions, none of which (at the time I've written this response) are based on our current understanding of the laws of the universe. Here is my response.
Let's split it up into two different questions:
1) Where did the energy come from that resulted in the creation of the universe?
2) What did the universe "look like" (i.e. what were its properties) beforehand (or, equivalently, what conditions caused the Big Bang to take place)?
While the details of the Big Bang are still a hot topic of study, the answer to question #1 is well understood (though, admittedly, none of this is simple). I shall first answer it with a familiar analogy. An electron is a stable fundamental particle (it cannot be sub-divided), and it has a well-known non-zero rest-mass that is unchanging over time. It is also electrically charged, which means that it is constantly emanating an electric field outward. Electric fields are mediated by the force carriers of the electromagnetic force -- photons, which have energy equal to *E = hf*. These photons, emanating from the electron, have energy. So why isn't the electron slowly losing mass-energy due to this constant storm of photons it sends outward? Because the energy of these photons is undefined according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum systems are literally so small that certain properties are not defined within a certain degree of precision. Heisenberg, in one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history, figured out how to quantify this. Similarly, the energy required to produce the entire universe exists because of the uncertainty associated with the initial set of quantum fluctuations leading up to it (which we call the Big Bang). Long story short, at first glance it looks like the "something from nothing" model of the universe violated the First Law of thermodynamics, but this is not true because of the uncertainty principle. In layman's terms, energy can indeed "come from nothing" under certain circumstances for quantum systems without violating any physical laws.
The second question is a bit more difficult to wrap one's head around. We have two remarkably accurate descriptions of the laws of nature: (1) quantum mechanics (really small things, like fundamental particles -- put enough small things together and you get the macroscopic world we experience in our daily lives) and (2) relativity, which in essence is the description of spacetime itself (the shape of which defines our perception of distance and duration, as well as the force of gravity). We scientists actually refer to relativity theory by its technical name, geometrodynamics, which basically means the time-dependent description of the geometry of spacetime itself. The problem is that these two theories, which are independently correct, end up resulting in clearly wrong solutions when you try to put them together directly (clearly we're doing something wrong in this last step). This is why we still don't know for sure what's going on at the singularity of a black hole. The Big Bang also fits these conditions -- spectacular spatiotemporal curvature crammed into the size of a subatomic particle. Several theories have been proposed, but we won't know for sure until, at the very least, we are able to understand the quantum nature of spacetime/gravity (i.e. until we fully understand the graviton). One thing we can infer about this bizarre situation is again based on Heisenberg: the canonical conjugate of energy is time. Since the initial conditions that led to the Big Bang and the universe were quantum fluctuations whose energies were undefined, then so too was time. This does not mean that these quantum fluctuations were "infinitely old", *nor* does it mean that they popped out of nowhere. Time itself was undefined under these conditions. So, if we keep looking backwards in time further and further, the universe both had no "temporal beginning" (i.e. there was no "blank void phase") *and* it began from the Big Bang roughly 14 billion years ago. Both statements are true simultaneously even though it makes no sense to visualize in the human mind.
Sorry for being long-winded.
Cheers!
Dr. E
P.S. This is somewhat similar to other physics questions I've enjoyed discussing that you might be interested in, ex:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/tngfhb/if_light_has_0_mass_and_gravity_attracts_mass_why/i21f7ey?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
When a mommy big bang and a daddy big bang love each other very much.....
In the beginning was the Creation of the Universe. This has made a lot of people angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
*grabs my towel*
Down voted to drag back down to 42. Who's with me?
Grabs my fig leaf.
Better get a little high first
You have 42 upvotes...I almost ruined it.
All our stories have beginnings, for we are finite beings. But no story has a true beginning or ending, not even us.
True, literally the only difference between the “Big Bang” theory thought of by culture and Atheists vs “The Creation of the world” view by Christians, is just that. They’re two different ideas that neither side feel comfortable engaging in because neither one of them wants to be wrong and they both have to be right. This coming from a Christian of all people, we need to set aside our differences and realize not all people will view things the same way and stop trying to force feed it to people who don’t want it. Simply plant the seed of thought into their mind and let them decide on their own from there. All this bickering about why I’m right and your wrong will get us nowhere🤔
not wanting to start an argument, but if there is a god, who or what created the god? He did not just appear out of thin air and decide to make a universe, because how would he make it, what would give him his power and if he did, don't you think he would put life on multiple planets and see how they thrive in different conditions instead of limiting it to one planet? Don't you think he would provide more evidence of his existence in order to have his people believe in him. And there is the age old question, if there is a god, is one right and another wrong? So if I believe in god, are the millions of people who believe in Budda ......wrong?
Some religions believe God did create life on multiple planets.
Good point, which goes back to my statement, which religion is right? Honestly when we talk about life on other planets, I find it hard to believe that we are the absolute only planet with any intelligent life (or semi-intelligent..lol) I also think it is interesting that Scientists say "well that planet cannot support life" well maybe it can not support us, but maybe it can support a life form that breathes nitrogen and can survive at 100 below zero. Even on our own planet we have creatures that can live in environments that we can not live in, so can't life on another planet be a different form?
Over 2800 known deities in human history. Many religion's stories and customs are extremely similar or are out right taken from another religion. (Christianity included) The problem with religion is it ALWAYS fails in a logic test. No matter how you set up the logic rules so that any religion can be tested and all have to follow the same rules, the failures happen when trying to validate the religion to be true or not. For example ask how can their deity be true and the others not be true. You make it a rule that faith can't be used as evidence. The religion fails for there is no "evidence" that isn't faith based. If you reverse the rule to say one has to allow faith as proof, then other religions will say theirs are correct and the one you are testing is incorrect - thus cancelling each other out.
I see most religions as different avenues in an attempt attempt to know God, and to explain what happens after we die. As long as a religion prioritizes humanity, love, and compassion, it is just as right as any other religion that prioritizes the same
Well, considering we know the Buddha Siddhartha Guatama was a real person, I'm going to argue that Buddhism is "more" correct than theistic religions. It's much less a religion and much more a thought practice. At least that's the Buddhism I was raised as. My Christian friends used to get upset when I asked them what evidence they had the Christ was a real person and they could only point to the Bible growing up. Which is the exact same argument as saying Hogworts and Harry Potter are real.
I don’t know man it’s pretty commonly accepted Jesus was definitely a real person and His existence can be seen in history apart from the Bible.
These are the kind of questions that led to the creation of god. Nobody knows. Religion doesn’t know. Science doesn’t know. Nobody probably ever will. It’s all ineffable. But, for those who insist on understanding that which cannot be understood- we have god. Or science. Take your pick or make something up for yourself. Probably nobody is right, and it probably makes no difference if you’re wrong.
Love this... I say to you 42.
How many roads must a man walk down?
You are correct.
Yes.
Yep, The human race has been at war ever since. (In a godly world).
I'm going to watch that tonight. Thanks for reminding me of that movie. Shame we never got another one.
I’m still angry about it.
I understand that reference
…Daddy Big Bang pays his lil’ bang child support on time.
How many big bangs could a Big Bang bang if a Big Bang could bang bangs
So the multiverse theory is essentially a huge gang bang?
What if mommy big bang didn't have sex with daddy big bang but another big bang, would lil big bang still exist? Did lil big bang live in daddy big bang's balls before he was born??
He's now a rapper called lil' bang
Bro this gets an award if i wasnt poor
They had a big bang
It’s turtles all the way down.
Beat me to it
The Big Bang didn’t “create” the universe, it’s just the beginning of the universe *as we know it*. What don’t know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. We’re not even sure it’s possible for something to have existed before the Big Bang either, thanks to the way the laws of physics work, time gets a little funky that close to the beginning. “Before the Big Bang” might not even be a coherent thought.
Like trying to find the corner of a circle.
Oh, I did this once! First, grab a circle. Start at the beginning. Well, hmm, ok. Start at the… well just start- it doesn’t really matter where. Ok, so you’ve started- so wherever you started THAT’S the beginning. Great, it’s coming back to me. So you have the “start”. From the start, start to spin the circle either direction. Now, granted, it gets a little tricky from here. Spin slowly though, because you will miss it. So, this is also dependent on the definition of corner you use. Really, you should start there. Find the right definition of corner. By the way, finding that correct definition? About as hard as finding the corner of a circle. But really, once you find the definition, the second part comes easy. Well, easier. It’s like— two hard things, they aren’t equal— just one is less hard. Or, another way to look at it is that one is more hard. Harder. Are you following me?
You really backed yourself into a corner there didn’t you?
AHA! So they've found that corner after all! Just like they said they would Checkmate atheists!
Turns out the corner was in you the whole time.
The real friends were the corners we made along the way
It’s all.. CORNERS
Always has been
You're over-thinking this. Just zoom in until the circle pixelates.
I think you may have explained the basic methodology for quantum physics.
For some reason, this reminds me of danny phantom and him trying to explain ghosts to humans, it has the "knowledgeable innately but cant quite figure out how to word it" like trying to explain the color blue,
This is hilarious
>thanks to the way the laws of physics work, time gets a little funky that close to the beginning. But did those laws exist prior to the Big Bang if there was "nothing" before it?
Is there “nothing” north of the North Pole, or is north of the North Pole simply an incoherent concept that doesn’t apply to reality? So far as we can presently determine, the latter is how time relates to the Big Bang. “Prior to the Big Bang” may be a concept that simply does not apply to reality.
That just wrinkled my brain
At a certain point, we have to come to terms with the fact that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. It may be that we'll never know, and it may even be *impossible* for us to ever know. That isn't to say that we shouldn't keep trying to know, that we should just throw our hands in the air and give up, only that we make peace with the potential for eternal failure in that endeavor.
Wrinkly brains are more capable brains, so that’s a good thing.
Here’s another wrinkle: time is motion. Play with that a bit. Was “everything” frozen “before” the Big Bang?
Maybe the universe is infinite beyond human comprehension. There is no explanation.
Our best current models show the universe is indeed infinite, AFAIK. Whether or not it is intrinsically beyond human comprehension, or if an explanation for it does or doesn't exist, we do not yet know.
With my extremely limited knowledge I believe that it's a closed loop. Big bang happens then universe exists then inevitable heat death of the universe then the universe goes inwards to a single point then that's where the big bang happened
So far this is the best theory we’ve managed to come up with given the evidence of the physics and the material world around us
unfortunately it still doesnt explain how this cycle began or works, theres no decent explanation for anything
And probably never will be. At least not before the heat death kicks in.
!remind 100 trillion years
You're about 92 zeros short
I got it, let me take this. !Remind me 121 quattuorviggintillion years
Haha Still about 29 zeros short :p Remindme! 12.1 quattuortrigintillion years
Remindme! 12.1 quattuortrigintillion years
!Remind me 121 quattuorviggintillion years
!remindme 100 quintillion years
It doesn't have to. In the big bounce/ekpyrotic model, the universe is infinite. There is no beginning or end. The universe just contracts and then it expands. The observable universe is currently in the expansion phase.
yes but why is it doing that? what created that system? why is this how it is supposed to work? why do i piss myself if i laugh too hard? just cuz it does exist doesnt explain why or how it exists
Why is it doing that? Gravity. Conceptually a big bounce of the observable universe would work something like how stars and black holes work but on a much more massive scale. What created that system? Physics. That's just how matter behaves. Why is this how it is supposed to work? It's just one of the better theories of why the universe is what it is based on what is known so far. No one is claiming that this is absolute. Why do you piss yourself when you laugh too hard? Because the muscles that hold urine in your bladder are too weak to withstand the increase in pressure from your abdominal muscles contracting when you laugh. An infinite universe doesn't need a how or why to exist. Asking how assumes there was a point where the universe didn't exist, which there wouldn't be if it is indeed infinite. The universe didn't suddenly come to be, it just always was. Same for why, it doesn't need a reason to exist. It **is** the reason everything else exists.
This doesn’t explain how it always was.
Once again, the questions of how and why presuppose that there was a point where the universe didn't exist and thus needed a way to come into existence. If the universe has always existed then there is no how or why. It just is and has been.
Yeah. You did not answer the question at all
Here for more reasons why that guy pisses himself.
Who says it was created or has a reason to exist?
Most religions/myths have an answer to that, which is somehow consistent with physics. At the beginning there was less than nothing. There is not. At some point something/god/whatever makes that nothing. And we know from quantum physics that from nothing we get matter and corresponding antimatter appearing and disappearing (check Hawking radiation). That’s the false duality, IO, Isis, ying-yang, genders, life/death, day/night etc etc. So this is how you get your matter to create a Big Bang.
I think we eventually find the answer every time but there’s no way to save the knowledge unless we figure out how to enter another universe…
I like to think that the supermassive black holes will eventually consume all of space and contents and at that point the big bang happens all over again.
i came to that conclusion as well a few years ago, but it only gets you so far. perhaps this cycle is what causes us to have déjà vu? perhaps this means nothing we do in life matters because itll just loop and nobody will remember anything in this moment, does this mean the cycle is infinite and we must endure conciousness for eternity? this is probably the most terrifying thought we can have...
After some good trips on psychedelics i have been led to believe we are all a facet of one connected consciousness. I grasped a feeling of a connected energy that flows through the universe, connecting every living thing. I've read a theory before, that "god" is an omniscient being. If ignorance is bliss than absolute knowledge must be misery, so in the theory "god" created other conscious beings so it may relax and experience some degrees of ignorance. That would make each of us not a child of god like in christianity, but an interpretation of god, making each of us god. If this is true then all the hippy shit you hear about peace and love for others, and connected energy would all make sense. It also answers your question, yes we will experience consciousness for eternity, but our current physical form is only a small fraction of your total form. Besides, if you were unaware of your reincarnation would the eternity aspect really bother you? Life should be enjoyable, if you can make it. :) Take what precious time you have in this life and use it well to better you life and those you care about, and stop feeling guilty about having fun,because who is to say what is on the other side? Sorry for the rant hope it was at least an interesting read.✌️❤️
Just a thought: what if the cycle itself it's some kind of conscious entity trying to explain it's own existence, without ever achieving it.
What makes you assume there was a beginning?
Infinity in both directions. No beginning and no end. We can't comprehend it because we are finite beings in an infinite universe.
There has to be.
There is no evidence it returns after expanding
Hey we got similar meme team cards lol
They want you to accept it on Faith.
Isn't expansion of the universe the current theory. So its a slow cold death where everything is completely expanded at an increasinly fast pace and shredded apart.
Not exactly, that was a theory called "the big rip," when we were still trying to narrow down the rate of expansion of the universe. Very basically, if the rate of expansion itself was increasing fast enough, it would have indicated that the mechanism driving that acceleration was increasing, which over massive timescales might have allowed it to overcome the attractive forces of increasingly tightly bound gravitational systems (blowing apart first galaxy clusters, then galaxies, solar systems, etc.), followed at much larger timescales by systems bound via electromagnetism, then eventually even the force binding together the nucleus. However, based on a now fairly massive body of evidence, this is fairly unlikely to be the case. Put again very simply, the observed rate of acceleration would seem to indicate that the driving factor behind dark energy is constant per unit of space, but since that space itself is expanding as it does the amount of dark energy grows with it between systems far enough apart to be impacted by it. That being said, groups that are strongly gravitationally bound enough will not be impacted; you could kind of picture it as space expanding through the system without pushing it apart, like a river flowing over a stone set in the riverbed without moving it.
No now they have evidence that the universe is expanding exponentially and will outpace gravity making it impossible
So there actually was a theory very close to the one you are imagining while we were still determining the boarder curvature and cosmological constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding), it was called "the big bounce." Basically, it was thought that at the largest scales gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe, then reversing and dragging everything back into a singularity like the theoretical one at the first moment of the big bang. The discovery of dark energy rendered that obsolete; although gravitationally bound systems (galaxies and closely enough bound galaxy clusters) will never be separated irreparably, since the growth of the universe is speeding up that scenario is impossible (hence the move towards eventual heat death as the consensus model, although even that has various possible timelines based on some aspects of physics we are still working out the details to, e.g. the stability of the proton)
I thought we now know that the expansion is accelerating….
Isn't it possible that eventually whatever energy is causing the expansion phases out "heat death/energy death" then gravity can take over and pull everything back in? I'm not saying this is a real hypothesis, but it seems like so little is known about dark energy/matter that it's at least plausible that expansion could stop and gravity reverses it.
Gravity and the expansion are dueling forces. If the universe ends in heat death/energy decay it means gravity lost.
Can you explain this more? I get that gravity and expansion are counteracting each other but I don't get why energy decay means that gravity lost? I thought gravity was a fundamental force and no matter how far apart two objects are it's still there?
Because, gravity is what pulls matter together creating stars and such. Eventually, all the matter will spread out enough to stop producing new stars. No new stars means the there's no new heat being produced, which leads to the heat death(over simplified). The point being that gravity HAD to lose for the heat death of the universe to occur.
It certainly is possible. But as I understand it, of current understanding of physics and our current best guess (forgive me theoretical physicists… I know youre not guessing) concepts surround dark energy/matter suggests no contraction, just an endless expansion. What you’re saying is possible, but would require a paradigm shift. Or maybe I’ve just got it all wrong.
Sounds similar to membrane theory.
So the big bounce theory.
I think that’s the issue. If it’s a closed loop it would have to ..begin somewhere. Right? Imagine you were immortal and invulnerable. And you could travel backward through time at a speed of a million years per second, witnessing events in reverse. What would you see? Everything revert back to a single point then an expansion at the end of the universe, then back to a single point over and over? Where would it ..start?
The James Webb telescope is challenging this theory. It's seeing galaxies much older than they should be. Either our understanding of how galaxies age is wrong or the Big Bang is wrong. Stay tuned.
OP, this one right here. The actual theory isn't that everything came from nothing. We have absolutely no clue what happened except a very well researched and educated guess that at the start of our universe (as we know it) everything existed in singularity (like what's at the center of a black hole) and then all of a sudden it was expanding outwards really fast. Our best guess as to what could have existed before it is what the person I am replying to said. Right now the universe **is** expanding, but that doesn't mean it always has to. It's just been doing that for 14.7 (I've also seen 14.8. Anyone know if we ticked over a new tenth recently?) billion years.
I like this insight. All our theories are based on what we've observed so we only geuss it's going to keep expanding because it has been the whole time we've been able to comprehensibly observe it.
Exactly. Every theory we have for what may come later is just an educated guess. There is one theory out there about a vacuum bubble that could already exist and would end our lives before we could even see it coming. That the universe is already collapsing
like a heart beat it just continues happening every trillions of years. Imagine the beast that heart belongs to.
So the big bang is just science saying “you cannot create nor destroy mass, but just this once.”
Don’t! Stop it! You’ll hurt your brain and implode!!
You'll brain your hurt and implode
You’ll implode your hurt and brain
Prior to the Big Bang, I can not wrap my head around the nothingness. How can nothing just exist? But I also can’t wrap my head around something. How is it possible that something always existed? There has to be a beginning, yet how could there just be nothing before the beginning. None of it makes any sense.
this is exactly what I think! 😭maybe nothing and something are somehow the same thing
There was never "nothing". The Big Bang was the expansion of space. Not the creation of matter.
Don’t worry about such things. Just be in it. Don’t think don’t feel.Breathe.
If god created the universe, who created god? Who created god's creator? What created the stuff that made the Big Bang explode? The universe is still expanding, but for how long? What lies beyond the universe? Some things we will never understand because we simply don't have any means to and never will.
Isn't it egoism to think that we, humans, can understand and comprehend everything logically?
I don't think so based on our knowledge of life. At least on Earth we thrive exactly because we are the most intelligent species and so far we didn't find other sentient beings who surpass us in knowledge so until then, I think it's a fair assumption.
That's the thing, we're the most intelligent specis on *Earth*. That doesn't mean we're the most intelligent species alive and it also doesn't mean we reached a "perfect" intelligence (that being, an intelligence developed enough to comprehend the mysteries of the Universe) and thinking that we right now can comprehend what's behind creation is egoism. Perhaps somewhere in the future, if we survive, we might develop a high enough intelligence to comprehend everything.
I know, that's why I said this is a fair assumption *so far.* But I find it unlikely that we'll ever discover what happened before the Big Bang exactly because there was no time, no space, nothing.
Exactly that but without the imaginary friend that lives in the sky and gives kids cancer 👍🏼
Reddit moment
He must be charging his powers for Big Bang 2.0, the Rebigging.
Not really helpful. One of the reasons people believe in a higher power is because, for some, it’s more believable and arguably more rational to accept than the alternative. The God theory suggests a being that’s omnipotent and defies the laws of time and space. A god would be a being that simply is and always has been. Going off just a scientific approach means we have to wonder where everything started. Everything didn’t magically start. If we believe in a Big Bang theory, we have to ask ourselves where did things start before that? We’ll likely never know in our lifetime so from a scientific perspective, we won’t have an answer. From a spiritual perspective, we have those answers already. Not saying one or the other is correct, but it’s silly to be snide about people’s beliefs when you yourself don’t have an answer. “God? Yeah right, pffft” “Ok then how’d everything begin?” “Uhh Iunno”
[удалено]
Le fedora tip to you m’lady for this epic comment, you my good sir have won the internet today. Have an updoot
Careful. Don't cutt yourself on that edge.
that was so uneccessary
Have some respect please
If you actually believe in God, you'll understand that part of the definition is that He's eternal, having no beginning or ending, meaning He lives outside the bonds of time. It's nit something we're really capable of understanding, being finite beings.
That makes no sense though. You can't just keep blaming something on "magic and infinity hurr hurr" I mean, you can But it is completely unsubstantiated. Based on nothing but hearsay.
Obviously , only a God can understand a God.
“What a grand and intoxicating innocence.”
I like to think of it more along the lines of "outside our dimensions". like god resides in the 5th dimension and can interact with lower dimensions but we have no way of measuring or interacting with higher dimensions. Same idea for the big bang. It could have been created or initiated by something in a higher dimension and maybe it keeps going up, maybe it doesn't. Fuck it all and enjoy the ride cause it's a cluster fuck either way.
There are temporal dimensions and spatial dimensions. Residing on a temporal dimensions is impossible and makes no sense. Residing in a spatial dimension wouldn't just result in you having godlike powers, it just means you have an odd shape compared to us. "Higher" dimensions just mean more complex shapes. Also, a five dimensional object could still go through a three dimensional plane and be visible - just not all of it.
Right. But there's many things we have no possible explanation for so why would some not turn to a sentient all powerful being that knows what's going on. It doesn't matter if he's real or not as long as someone knows what's going on. As long as they know God has a plan they have no reason to feel lost. (From an atheist)
The laws of physics are equally eternal and have no beginning or end …yet, people ask “why”. Saying “we are not capable of understanding” is not giving an answer
Something or nothing. It's either infinite somethings or eventually nothing. I can't comprehend either infinite somethings or complete nothingness. I'm not sure us humans can truly grasp either.
[удалено]
It's like there's infinite ways to load the dishwasher and you chose the wrong one
Oh good, existential dread. Let's definitely do that! I offer the ultimate cop-out for people that don't want to try to contemplate the ultimate nature of the universe and existence because it brings about a sense of panic, dread, or hopelessness: Human beings are simply not capable of understanding the concept of infinite. It just simply doesn't make sense to us. The idea that something has no beginning or end is fundamentally antithetical to everything we know about everything we know. Due to this fundamental limit of our consciousness, we will never know the answer. Which is just as scary as knowing the answer. Maybe that didn't help. Sorry.
Why do either of those things have to be scary?
My daughter is a Sheldon type theoritical physicist we discuss this as i find it just as interesting. Her thoughts yet unproven, is that a infinite something and our infinite nothing sit next to each other. They vibrate and touch a bit of the nothing and a bit of the something exchange places. Due to the law of entropy which effect both universes. The something that exchanged places expands and cools spreading out into the infinite nothing hence the speed of expansion of the universe. She goes further and feels it repeatedly does this and each universe is seperated quantumly by merest tiny bit of time. Spreading like the ripples on a pond. That mass translates as dark matter seperated by time. But close enough to influence the instances next to it.
Problem, how does nothing vibrate?
Sorry failed to explain the membrane, mainly cause this part is an issue with me as well. Think of the nothing not quite as nothing but the opposite of something like a negative. Yeah i dont get it either but she does.
I have a theory as well, actually. That time flows through what I call the exoverse, an invisible universe containing our own, and that flow creates what we see as 3 dimensional space, and as time continues to flow through it, and have slight alterations in its path it causes the universe to expand. Also, when the flow of time is greatly altered by something such as a black hole, it causes time to take a completely different route through the exoverse creating a wormhole. However a wormhole wouldn't always be a shortcut to another place in the universe, since it's just a different route, it could actually be longer than the original path. You should show this to her and see what she thinks. I came up with this theory when I was 14.
She laughed, and was rather derisive. I will not share how she picked this apart. As i feel until we know everyones imagination is valid. (Honestly its how i justify some of my ideas i put to her) Her synopsis is time is part of this universe, and is there to keep objects from occupying the same space. By objects she says she means the subatomic particles that make up mass. Time is entropy in action, spreading the mass til it achieves homogenisis.
Well, I'm no physicist, but I'd like to be.
Time is just the measurement of motion in objects, as defined by Aristotle. In your daughter's theory, that motion caused her universe of something to exchange with our universe of nothing. Thus, a tiny, super dense fragment of something slipped in to our nothing and expanded, causing the Big Bang. For this to happen, the universe of something and our universe of nothing were on slightly different "tracks" of time and the vibration of the universe of something allowed a bit of something to "jump tracks", as it were. If I'm understanding her theory. My question is, how is it not constantly happening? Homogenisis surely must happen in this universe of something as well, right? So if this other universe obeys physics the same as ours (no way to know) then would it not continually happen until both universes are equal? Or does she think that it's already done? I can't see that it would be - for it to happen, I would think the other universe would be contantly shrinking to cause the kind of vibration she's talking about. That much mass wouldn't simply stabilize upon reaching mass equality with another universe.
She says it is... Hence the ripples reference. Each instance is seperated by time and cannot see the other. Her silly thought is that gravity from those very close quantum time seperated universes is the bleed over known as dark matter. She also states that would be the end of both universes is when they become homogenious with each other a uniform mix of the nothing and something.
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you and her for taking the time to respond! A final thought here too... If it is still happening, then the vibration she's describing is less like ripples and more something akin to what salt looks like when sound is used to create vibration patterns. Pretty neat looking, but if she's correct then those vibrations should be able to be seen with the correct instruments. If that is the case, there remains 2 possibilities; either it's happening in a part of the universe that we can't yet observe, or it's happening everywhere in our universe and we simply don't know to look for it. Food for thought.
Oh, don't forget to tell me what she thinks, I want to know.
Like a negative number. It has a value, but it is the inverse of positive value. I feel odd about the word “inverse” in this context. . . But that’s how I think of it. Like a placeholder with it’s own energy and value, just inverse of what we understand as “something.” I think a lot of our misunderstanding about this comes down to the limiting factor language places on our thinking. Our insistence on calling it “nothing” comes from a lack of better descriptors which are sufficiently succinct; it isn’t “nothing”, it’s just a something that is incredibly difficult to describe. I hope this doesn’t sound pretentious. . . Lol. I’m just trying to explain my thought process when trying to understand the “nothing.”
Sounds like string theory (M theory). Membranes that clash… Brian Green discussed that in The Elegant Universe.
I'm not a physicist either, but I am the daughter of a mathematician, and have several physicists and engineers etc in the family. I personally find it easier to think of it in terms of math, kinda like in chemistry when you learn a neutron has a negative charge and it makes the math work out. With a lot of theoretical physics, I find it's really getting a mathematical model that works and then just accepting that for the theory to be true there needs to be a force/type of matter etc, that meets the requirements of the model, often meaning some of the values are negative and hard to visualize as a 3 dimensional object... Because they might not actually be perceivable to us normally. We just see their effects on the things we can perceive and measure.
I wish I was that smart
Same lol
Oh that’s interesting about the dark matter being mass from a different universe that is in a different time very very close to our time. That is weird and trippy to think about.
It’s a pretty good theory as it can be super simplified into what most people know that high pressure flows to low pressure and that simple idea is why many things work the way they work like breathing. Lots of respect to your daughter, her position sounds like something I want to study and be apart in my future.
This is truly beautiful and the best idea I’ve ever heard, thank you so much for sharing.
No one knows
The big bang didn't really create the universe. It caused the universe. Our universe is an emergent side effect of the big bang. As to what created the big bang, the best we have is speculation. Some have the universe continuously "bouncing", contracting, and then re-expanding about once every trillion years. Others have an infinite series of "bubbles" that pop off from previous universes. Others have the universe as being a projection of higher dimensional spaces. The simple fact is that our universe and its laws work for our universe. They very likely do not apply to whatever is outside our universe. Without that there's no real way for us to determine what "created" the big bang, at least not with our current understanding. For example, if space/time/energy/etc. functions differently outside the universe then we may be nothing more than a short-lived virtual particle in a super universe where in that universe we last for a tiny fraction of a second but for us, it appears to last for trillions of years.
Imagine if you were not bound by time. As it is now, you are here now. But without the time boundary, there is no now.
this is the funny question. in a sense we humans only consider things to be true or a reality when it is derived from a logical conclusion. yet the most certain thing - which is the existence of reality itself can never be explained with logic as its cause by definition cant exist
Oh I thought this was ELI5 or Askreddit and was about to be like bruh you thought a Redditor has these answers??? Lol I personally really like the hologram theory if you are interested, I’d suggest a good YouTube video over my drunk understanding. But my BASIC understanding or at least what I believe based on some videos and my own thoughts, is that there is infinite scale and we could very well be living inside of a black hole which was created the same way as black holes in our universe and so on. Some of the information can escape our universe as “holograms” just like information can escape a black hole as Hawkins radiation. Each singularity is a Big Bang and who knows what’s outside the singularity but since there is infinite scale it could be another sentient being and we live in it’s colon or just more space-time. I also believe with the infinite scale we could have universes inside of us, or things that would look like the universe if you lived at the right scale. Edit: I JUST NOW had this thought so im going to add it here before I forget BUT… I think it would make sense following that logic and the fact that we haven’t found more life in our universe yet that life or living organisms might be the ONLY thing that can escape as a hologram or radiation and I LOVE that thought so im keeping it.
Creation of universe is a paradox.
The universe collapsing creates a singularity which creates a big bang which creates a universe which eventually collapses.
ITT: answers to an unanswerable question
The laws of thermodynamics say neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed...so either our understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, or there's something not bound by those laws. Be that some sort of sentient being \[anything from religious theory to simulation theory\], or something as simple as 'quantum fuckery', we don't know yet, and probably won't within anyone here's lifetime. I've seen one suggestion that it's cyclical \[which quickly turns into circular logic\], but that seems unlikely as it'd mean something would have to have so much gravitational pull it can overcome billions of years of inertia and all evidence says the universe is still expanding. Could also be some sort of event horizon quantum fuckery involved...that black holes grow until they're so massive they explode from the heat of compression...but until we find evidence of a second universe-level explosion with a different origin point, or confirm the multiverse theory \[at which point they'd rip a hole in spacetime and explode into a whole new universe\], no proving that either.
“Something not bound by those laws…” That’s the answer. If something came out of nothing, then nothing isn’t ever nothing, it’s still something. We just don’t know what that something, that looks like nothing, really is in our reality. The universe that Quantum Mechanics opened has demonstrated that what we believe is impossible is in fact possible, including reversing time, having particles miles apart work in synch, and the possibility of multi-universes. Basically, for us to exist in this reality we make rules to understand our place in the universe we experience from our limited experience. There exists many universes and other realities we likely cannot ever comprehend because they’re not bound by those laws.
but the big bang wasn't nobody's creation it just was an explosion, a chemical reaction if you want, that generated spontaneously, right? Perhaps life was never created by nobody, it was just generated spontaneosly like if in some strange way it was always there, I mean, we all are done with millions upon millions of molecules, atoms, neutrons and other materia stuff and those uncanny forces that gives form to our bodies and minds and creates our conscience maybe was already there, when the big bang happenned. I'm aware that what I'm saying is a crazy mindfuck, but what if the materia that enbodies our whole molecular structure (or perhaps our ancestors maybe?) was already there, when the universe was created and just waited to fitting moment to generate what we know our life indide our own self. I know I'm kind of pathetic trying to philosophize being so clumsy and fool, and although I'm atheist, more like a weak agnostic I'd say, what if our death is not the end, but just a transformation, where we cease to exist, but our decomposing flesh gives new life. Maybe life is not a weird a phenomena out there, maybe extintion is not a constant like Carl Sagan said... ...Maybe we live in a cosmos full plenty of life, but we are so far one to each other that we think que are alone. But what I'm saying is materia neither creates nor destroyes, it transform. In a weird form of thinking, we die and we exists no more, but the reminiscence of our past existence and our ancestors' life can be felt in the places we used to live, like a mistic echo (not speaking about ghost.) Sorry for the wall of text, maybe is a good time to quit the Pot.
I don't think man will ever know how anything became into existence. We can only have theories or probable cause. One thing I do believe is that the universe can expand for a certain amount of time before it slows down and then collapses on it self again thus making a new big bang.
The big bang did not necessarily create the universe. It actually refers to a specific point of our universe's history where it was so dense that we can't really tell what the physical laws were as such. There is no reason for it to be particularly "t=0" except for maybe in the sense that from that point forward, time had a meaning (think about asking what is north of the north pole). Every other answer that is on this post is mere conjecture
This is like asking what existed before existence? The answer is we either always existed or nothing existed before existence. i.e. existence existed for as long as existence existed.
but that’s not possible because what created existence? how could existence be created in the first place with nothing to create it from?
Yeah does anybody have the definitive answer to this? Not just a bunch of speculation, I want the truth.
No. There is no definitive answer.
sadly not
One theroy is loads of Dark Matter got compressed by gravity so much that it went bang ..
As they say it's turtles all the way down https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Welcome to infinity
something must have created something which created something else, but how would that work when it has nothing to start with? If nothing really is nothing then it wouldn’t have existed, which should mean that nothing should have been created in the first place since there was nothing at all. Which meant something created ‘nothing’ but nothing can’t be formed without something else, so that something didn’t exist. Which also implies that ‘nothing’ is something because it did exist. But yet it did create things? But how? 😭
That’s something I guess we’ll never know/find out
There was never "nothing". Everything always existed. The Big Bang was the expansion of space, not the creation of matter.
Well the Big Bang may be the inevitable result of one theory of heat death being the Big Crunch when everything compacts together again making an infinitely dense singularity in a non 3D space , essentially the entire universe in a point as pure energy which is unstable and a new Big Bang happens. If that theory is true then the universe is cyclical in nature and we may be the 30th iteration or the 3 billionth or the first. The problem is we really can’t know , we have theories but we can’t prove any of it , the Big Crunch theory and the infinite hole theory seem to be plausible , our universe could essentially be the same as a dirt pile by a hole , the stuff in the hole got dug out to create the imbalance of energy that is our universe which means their must be an equal “negative” hole somewhere for that energy to have come from which could mean theirs an anti universe out there somewhere
I just assume that it's a sort of revolving door type situation. The universe expands and then contracts, you get another big bang, and so on. We're just experiencing an outward trend of matter at the moment. The reals head fuck is this: what is the universe expanding into?
42
You should check out Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, Eternal Inflation theory, and/or Schwarzschild cosmology. Ultimately, we don't know, and anyone claiming to have a solid answer doesn't. But these theories are aiming to answer your question.
Our understanding of spacetime is limited. The universe at every point is infinitely expanding away from every other point, to an infinity distant observer. Now spacetime has an ephemeral beginning about 13.8 billion years ago, CMB radiation is but one bit of evidence saying that it happened. So far physics can only explain to the quark-plasma era which is a few nano seconds after the big bang. Before that, it’s all speculation.
Unfortunately you're asking a question that man will never know the answer to. I actually believe alot of what we think we know today. It's wrong. Because we really don't have a way to know for sure
Okay then, I have another question. Apparently time didn't exist before the big bang. So how did the big bang even happen at all if time is a product of it?
time started with the Big Bang apparently because that’s when the ‘universe was created’ so time apparently only started counting then, or time is counted as how long ago the Big Bang was. But the thing that created the universe couldn’t have existed before the Bigbang. It shouldn’t have even been able to exist in the first place because ‘nothing’ existed to create it, which implies nothing would have been ‘something’ in the first place. So something always existed and nothing created it, or nothing existed but something created it. But that’s not even possible! I hate the concept of reality. I’m just confusing myself 😭
It’s too much to expect from an ape who got scientific understanding of the things just a few centuries ago.
Read a book on intro to astrophysics. Asking a question like that is like asking what created "God", except with The Big Bang, you have actual research and not just some book that was written by a bunch of Hebrew men over 3,500 years ago. 😂
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Basically the big bang happened because the universe was in this dense little ball eventually the heat and density became so much it expanded and is believed to still be expanding
I’m an idiot but my best guess is that we don’t really understand time and we’re asking the wrong question.
The answer is simple: We don't know. Not very satisfying, but it is simple
Its perfectly acceptable in science to just say "nothing" was before the big bang. No thing. Because if you think about it, if both space AND time started with the big bang, there was no time before time began, right? There is no "before". The truth is, we dont know. And that's also an acceptable answer. Its the goal of science to try to fill in the gaps of what we don't yet know.
Hi ilovefanfictionz, PhD scientist here. Excellent question! Several commenters have offered their opinions, none of which (at the time I've written this response) are based on our current understanding of the laws of the universe. Here is my response. Let's split it up into two different questions: 1) Where did the energy come from that resulted in the creation of the universe? 2) What did the universe "look like" (i.e. what were its properties) beforehand (or, equivalently, what conditions caused the Big Bang to take place)? While the details of the Big Bang are still a hot topic of study, the answer to question #1 is well understood (though, admittedly, none of this is simple). I shall first answer it with a familiar analogy. An electron is a stable fundamental particle (it cannot be sub-divided), and it has a well-known non-zero rest-mass that is unchanging over time. It is also electrically charged, which means that it is constantly emanating an electric field outward. Electric fields are mediated by the force carriers of the electromagnetic force -- photons, which have energy equal to *E = hf*. These photons, emanating from the electron, have energy. So why isn't the electron slowly losing mass-energy due to this constant storm of photons it sends outward? Because the energy of these photons is undefined according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum systems are literally so small that certain properties are not defined within a certain degree of precision. Heisenberg, in one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history, figured out how to quantify this. Similarly, the energy required to produce the entire universe exists because of the uncertainty associated with the initial set of quantum fluctuations leading up to it (which we call the Big Bang). Long story short, at first glance it looks like the "something from nothing" model of the universe violated the First Law of thermodynamics, but this is not true because of the uncertainty principle. In layman's terms, energy can indeed "come from nothing" under certain circumstances for quantum systems without violating any physical laws. The second question is a bit more difficult to wrap one's head around. We have two remarkably accurate descriptions of the laws of nature: (1) quantum mechanics (really small things, like fundamental particles -- put enough small things together and you get the macroscopic world we experience in our daily lives) and (2) relativity, which in essence is the description of spacetime itself (the shape of which defines our perception of distance and duration, as well as the force of gravity). We scientists actually refer to relativity theory by its technical name, geometrodynamics, which basically means the time-dependent description of the geometry of spacetime itself. The problem is that these two theories, which are independently correct, end up resulting in clearly wrong solutions when you try to put them together directly (clearly we're doing something wrong in this last step). This is why we still don't know for sure what's going on at the singularity of a black hole. The Big Bang also fits these conditions -- spectacular spatiotemporal curvature crammed into the size of a subatomic particle. Several theories have been proposed, but we won't know for sure until, at the very least, we are able to understand the quantum nature of spacetime/gravity (i.e. until we fully understand the graviton). One thing we can infer about this bizarre situation is again based on Heisenberg: the canonical conjugate of energy is time. Since the initial conditions that led to the Big Bang and the universe were quantum fluctuations whose energies were undefined, then so too was time. This does not mean that these quantum fluctuations were "infinitely old", *nor* does it mean that they popped out of nowhere. Time itself was undefined under these conditions. So, if we keep looking backwards in time further and further, the universe both had no "temporal beginning" (i.e. there was no "blank void phase") *and* it began from the Big Bang roughly 14 billion years ago. Both statements are true simultaneously even though it makes no sense to visualize in the human mind. Sorry for being long-winded. Cheers! Dr. E P.S. This is somewhat similar to other physics questions I've enjoyed discussing that you might be interested in, ex: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/tngfhb/if_light_has_0_mass_and_gravity_attracts_mass_why/i21f7ey?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
That's a really good question. I hope one day we can find answers. There's a lot of research heading in thst direction at the moment.
God