For the Big bang there was nothing. What is the scientific view of this ‘ nothing ‘?

To know what “nothing” is, you first need to know what “something” is. Less cryptically said we need to know the nature of the universe.It is not certain that there is a difference between “something” and “nothing”. So far, there is little evidence that the universe consists of “something”. It is energy, time and consciousness. Nobody knows what that actually is. In my vision, the Big Bang is the moment when time and energy have intertwined in natural laws. The timer went running and energy was turned into matter. Also natural laws are a vague notion if we do not conceive them in mathematics. Consciousness is an ultimate mystery. Consciousness may have already been present for the Big Bang and it is the trigger for the Big Bang. It will have to be timeless and not local. Possibly the universe is only a cosmic experience in an abstract intangible world. Our brains are able to be part of this experience. Because we have learned to think in time and space or “something and” nothing “, we ask questions such as” What was there for the Big bang “? It is our limited understanding that the answer to this question makes impossible. As for the cosmic role of consciousness, the debate is not yet closed. Quantum physics teaches us that conscious perception makes one thing only a thing. That implies that the universe as a thing only exists through observation by a cosmic conscious observer who is everywhere. Other philosophers reject this and say that consciousness arises naturally in human active brains and not beyond. Final conclusion? There is no evidence that there is anything now and no proof that there was nothing for the Big Bang. I understand that this is not an answer, but it does give substance to the mind for thought.

Stephen Hawking once said something like: ‘ The question of what was there before the Big bang, is nonsense, since the space time started with the Big Bang.It is just such a question as: What lies north of the Arctic ‘.

The Big Bang Theory is not a science, but it is in the field of philosophy and religion.Science relates to repeatable experiments or theories that can be tested. The initial conditions of a possible big bang are not imitated. We cannot repeat or test the Big Bang.

I can remember that in the years 70 three theories existed next to each other: the Steady State, the Oscilating and the Big Bang theory.The Big Bang theory is the current paradigm. This is because of the redshift of the light from far away galaxies, which could indicate the expansion of the universe; And by the background radiation that comes quite evenly from all parts of the universe, which is perceived as the ‘ reverberation ‘ of the Big Bang.


NOTHING is: No time space, no natural laws, no possibility to move, no energy and completely impenetrable.If we were ever to encounter NOTHING, it might look like black glass. Light will mirror it because nothing can absorb anything. We will not even be able to scratch it.

The time started with the Big Bang.Since there was no time, you can’t talk about the big Bang either. ‘ Before ‘ is a time-display.

In this sense, “nothing” means no time and no space.

Error.For the Big Bang, the universe was not in its current configuration. There has never been ‘ nothing ‘.

With nothing is meant: the absolute nothing.No space, no time, no energy, no matter, nothing, none, Nakkes, nada, Nichts! 😉

There are, however, 2 types of absolute nothing distinguishable, namely the stable absolute nothing and the unstable absolute nothing.

The unstable absolute nothing is forced to ever lapse into ‘ something ‘, like for example the birth of our universe, with eventually space, time, matter, energy, etc.

Holtzappel and Goossens have told how it is according to people who have a lot more understanding than me. I know that it is to the best current scientific insights as they say, but I do not give that answer, because I cannot contain it.I would have liked to have been silent if Freek had not asked me for an answer.

I believe that is because there is no space-time dimension for the Big Bang.Without space-time there is nothing.

Grtn, Stign

For the Big Bang, there was the Uiverse summed up in a sub-atomic ball.An immeasurably small and super compact tip with an enormous amount of energy and heat. All laws of nature, like the laws of time, do not exist yet.

There has never been “nothing”.It just seems so, because for the Big Bang, time, as we know it now, does not exist. For the Big Bang, the timeline was not linear, and was becoming more compact without ever really being reduced to nothing. So there is no “real” principle, a definable starting point.

It is not that the Big Bang has made the universe out of the “nothing”, it just seems so, because of our inability to imagine the events for the Big Bang.Events for the Big Bang are not definable, just because there is no way to be able to measure or register them.

And since events for the Big Bang do not have any “perception consequences”, you can omit them from the whole theory as well and define that time began with the Big Bang.

Or at least that is what Stephen Hawking’s “No-boundary” proposal proposes.

There is no science about the ‘ nothing ‘.We also cannot, in principle, know what the ‘ nothing ‘ is, especially the ‘ nothing ‘ isnot even.

Leave a Reply