Quick question. First you have a little (dot) singularity, it then explodes and gives birth to space and everthing in it...stars, matter, etc..etc. My question is, what the heck was the "Emptiness that was before space" ? If space hadn't existed yet, what was this tiny singularity existing "in" before it exploded? It couldn't be space because it wasn't there yet. Kinda makes the brain hurt a little. I made a little graph for visual analysis.

its nothing.....i dont know how else to explain it, other than nothingness

This is a question which may never be answered.

i agree, there is no possible way to know for sure, its just not possible....at least not at the current time

As well as 'what is on the otherside of the universe'.

Not science or any other belief can answer what was before the supposed 'big bang', how far the universe stretches for, or what is beyond it if it does have an end. etc.

Wouldn't it be amazing if one day we mustered the technology or faith together to find out that answer. My thought is what if we don't like the answer we find?

OK. I have asked myself that question everyday for the past year. It made me think so much, i decided i will probably become and Astro-Physicist. These questions cannot be answered other than through that String Theory, the big emptiness that has many universes in them. I don't know!!!! IT MAKES MY BRAIN HURT when i become an astro-Physicist thats what i want to prove/disprove.

Exactly nothing. We cannot get our heads around 'nothing' and never will because when we think of nothing human nature tells us that it is something.

The image you posted is a perfect example that you cannot graphically represent/imagine/or otherwise perceive 'nothing'. Because of the blackness outside the universe (in the image) is given 'space' we have already failed to represent it. We cannot depict nothing in an image, to do so the arrow would have to point at nothing which is impossible in a space-time existence. Even space is something.

The singularity point would also then effectively (prior to BB) not be possible to graphically represent or imagine. In effect it is nowhere at notime in nothing, it never got there, noone put it nowhere at notime. And that will only make sense to people who can imagine the concept of nothing NOT imagine nothing. The singularity is outside of time and space.

Maybe the tiny dot of singularity was the only thing that existed and beyond that nothing. Since it had everything essential for a universe, it needed nothing to exist in, except itself.

Ok, since nothing (NO-THING) existed before the Big Bang maybe the only phenomena that could possibly have existed was in the non-physical realm, like....energy waves, light...etc. If not that then the only thing that i can think of that could possibly have existed outside of physical reality is our Mind. This is definitely "out of the box" thinking but hear me out.....IF this is the case then what if the Universe was simply an "idea" in our minds and we "thought" it into existence. Maybe at that level of pure mind just the simple thought of it manifests matter instantly. Remember, quantum physics says that things at the quantum level exist only when WE are observing it. Our observation of it actually effects what's being observed. At that level everything is a probability. Maybe after millions of years of living here in many different forms as we slowly evolved we simply forgot that we are "inside" one of our creations. Maybe it is OUR minds that have directed the evolutionary process all along and WE are the end products of it and simply don't realize it yet. Maybe that realization is ultimately what we are all evolving towards. I mean think about it, scientists say that we are all here by random chance and that all of life (including us) had to adapt to the environment in order to survive. Ok, how could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process based on "adapting to the environment" know that it is adapting in the first place and is producing order? How could one random event build upon previous random events without some sort of intelligence behind it? It woudn't even know it was building anything at all. How did an unconcious process produce conciousness? How could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process ever produce a life form such as me and you that HAS conciousness and is able to go beyond adapting AND can actually change it's environment? I personally think we have it all backwards and we simply are leaving out one of the most impotant components in this whole thing...OUR MINDS. I think our non physical minds have always existed, which explains how there can be no "before" the Big bang. I think we have been guiding this evolutionary process all along and just haven't woken up to that realization yet. I have a hunch we're more than we think we are! Ok, back to the regular schedled program....

How could energy waves exist in a non-physical realm? Thus saying that matter existed before the big bang.



Even if we don't observe it, it happens. Just like the age old question; if a tree fell in a forest and no one was around would it make a sound? Technically yes, it would make a sound wave, just no one would be there to receive it. And if you are claiming that we made the universe in our minds, and therefore it manifest, that is more of a far out theory than the theory of parallel universes and such. Seems more like a matrix thing to me.



In a sense it's called survival of the fittest. There have been many times through history where we didn't succeed. Eventually we do, after trial and error.


Although your theory is an interesting one, I doubt it could be correct. That would definitely be stranger than fiction. It could make one fascinating book though.

on evo:
"co-evolving systems..., play between adaptation and non-adaptation. total adaptation and total non-adaptation are both letal. in ecology, a niche fits the species sufficiently, without defining it. what else is fitting, but not defining each other, than an emancipated relation." weizsacker (1975)

nothing is easily explained, but impossible to visualize because in visualizing "nothing" your visualizing something in the form of nothing, which isnt nothing. The closest we can get to visualizing "nothing" is to contrast nothing by visualizing the whole of the universe in a bubble that encompasses everything. The problem is, if nothing exists(meaning the complete absense of matter, time, space, light, and darkness) then how did something spontaneously spring out of nothing?!? Higgs field theory addresses this problem, but it requires that even nothing is something. Noone knows whether nothing really exists, or if there exists something everywhere yet we comprehend the extreme's of the spectrum of something with the other extreme, nothing. Then agian, if nothing exists, does it exist only as a infinitly unchanging space, or does it still carry some of the characteristics of space-time. Possibly the "nothing" that surrounds our universe is what is responsible for the curving of objects that move through(meaning around the edge) of our universe's boundary. My brain doesn't hurt now, it just ran out of gas.

dark matter??

Not according to Quantum Physics. At that level there is no "thing" unless we are observing it. When not being observed it's just a probability. It's only a "probable thing" at that point. Once we do the observing is when it becomes a particle. When you try to get a hold on the particle's momentum it no longer exists and becomes a wave.

Here's what physicist Niels Bohr said about it:
Quote....So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks like a wave, it is a wave. Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed.....End Quote.


Really think about it, there can be no "trial and error" if the process has no intelligence behind it to think about trying anything at all. How can something know it didn't succeed? Remember, it doesn't "know" anything. How can something that has zero intelligence even know what "trying" is? How would it know what "error" was? How can anything without intelligence behind it "know" it is succeeding at all to take the next evolutionary step? It wouldn't even know what succeeding was, it's unconcious and has NO intelligence whatsoever! In order for something to succeed through trial and error it has to "know" it's succeeding in the first place in order for it to take the next step to further it's trial and errors.

How could intelligence raise from primordial slime? Because intelligence is required to survive. First there was bacteria, a programmed microbe that does two things, eat and propagate. Then slowly it started to grow in a way that absorbed more energy, and with that energy it grew a little more until it turned into algae. Then fish, then land creatures, then monkeys, then us. Just because something doesnt think doesnt mean it doesnt learn.

In a sense that is true, but it's only a partial truth. There is an absolute reality outside of the human experience. We as observers witness the final state of the wave function, as it collapses and takes it's final form. In example, If a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to see it, then it does not really fall. This is the claim of solipsism or idealism. Now we have a quantum reinterpretation of trees falling in the forest. Before an observation is made, you don't know whether it has fallen or not. In fact, the tree exists in all possible states simultaneously. Once the observation is made, the tree springs into definite state, and we see that it has fallen, for instance. Therefore, it exists even if we don't observe it, we just don't realize it until we do. I have read Bohrs theories, they are interesting, but aren't correct completely.



You do have a point here, but let me also say that with time it adapts and adjusts to what it needs on basic instincts. Also along with the design of space and nature, we are designed to learn and evolve.

kinda like the woods, nothing unto you go in them.

and the corrolary to that (which is evidenced every day) is just because something can think does not mean it can learn.