It is now generally accepted throughout the scientific community and the public at large that the universe did indeed grow out of a Big Bang and that we were all therefore created out of nothing.

 

The term Big Bang is actually a misnomer because there was no bang as such. For one thing, there was no air to carry any sound waves, plus there was no one around to hear it, at least it’s highly unlikely.

 

This notwithstanding, in trying to figure out exactly what did take place and which culminated in us, we come face to face with similar dilemmas that have preoccupied the minds of Men when the revelations of quantum mechanics and special relativity ran into direct conflict with common sense, but which eventually gave birth to modern physics.

 

Our present conundrum – how can something come out of nothing? It just doesn’t make sense, however hard we try to conceptualize it. Not only that, but we realize, on closer examination, that there are a number of key words which, when taken together, only serve to confuse us further, and so make the task of unraveling the puzzle that much more perplexing.

 

Words like existence, nonexistence, space, emptiness, real, imaginary.

 

Nothing. Something.

 

Let us turn the question around, and instead of asking if something was created out of nothing, let us ask: is nothing itself something that also needed to be created?

 

Or is there in fact no such thing as nothing?

 

Are these familiarities two sides of the same coin?

 

Consider a coin spinning on its axis. Viewed from the side, the coin alternately disappears, immediately reappears, grows to a maximum size and then shrinks again to nothing and so on.

 

Of course, it hasn’t shrunk at all; it merely looks as if it has. And if we take a really close look at the coin, we will see that its edge possesses finite thickness, even if only fractional.

 

We ask ourselves: are there ultimate, fundamental truths that exist; truths that cannot have been created, or thought up, or designed or conceived, and that sit at the top as it were, above which nothing can position itself as somehow more fundamental or essential to, or required for, the existence of anything else?

 

Little gems of wisdom; tightly wrapped packets of feeling interlaced with curiosity, reason, charm, beauty, symmetry; floating around in hyperspace, and waiting for, well, nothing in particular actually, and which we conventionally label thoughts, or ideas.

 

At the deepest of deep levels, the universe, and everything contained in it, can be construed as a consequence of the wavelike interaction between what’s real and what’s imaginary, an interaction that is governed by the rules of Boolean logic and Binary arithmetic representation of that which is and that which isn’t – ones and zeros, ons and offs. A boundary has to exist that separates the universe from whatever lies the other side of the boundary and which we can call Nothing. Would that Nothing be something, and is that Nothingness the same thing as that which is imaginary – which we can call nonexistence, and here we are trying to arrive at an understanding of what nonexistence may or may not be, as if nonexistence is the term given to something that is not permanent and could change?

 

Here, we must distinguish two kinds of nonexistence – the kind that does not exist, but which could, given the right circumstances; and that which under no circumstances ever could exist. A pig flying through the sky is an example of the second kind – unless of course it’s being conveyed through the air in a jumbo jet. We are concerned here with nonexistence of the first kind.

 

Existence is energy, but energy facing a particular direction (for want of a better phrase). Nonexistence is energy facing in the opposite direction [whatever that might mean]. And here, we are considering the reality of things prior to the Big Bang that presumably was a state of nonexistence, a possibly different state to that of nothingness, but which would have preceded a state that was the coming into existence of something that was not nothing.

 

Prior to the Big Bang there must have been the potential for something to come into existence, and that would include me, especially me. I’m not so sure about you dear reader, but regarding yours truly, I don’t care what anyone else might think. I am almost 100% convinced that my existence on this planet is not due solely to an accident of creation or evolution.  Remove the potential for an event, and the event would never happen.

 

Is nothing the same thing as nonexistence? If so, what is it that pits existence against nonexistence? The answer has to be contained in a simple, underlying fundamental truth that cannot be created, designed, thought up, conceived, postulated or theorized.

 

There is no in-between stage; energy is either one or the other. The universe is a vibration with an upper and lower bound. As more vibrations come into being during the phase change, so the Boolean logic operations ensure that expansion occurs in order to make room for these new vibrations in accordance with the rules.

 

These binary logic operations are the modus operandi [raisin d’etre] of the universe, and are all present simultaneously.

 

Immediately following the Big Bang [which is a nodal peak/trough of the primary vibration], more and more secondary and tertiary vibrations etc. came into play to take on a life and meaning in accordance with Boolean logic. All subsequent vibrations stem from the fundamental vibration.

 

Simple, inevitable, and totally outside the control of anything. Everything – fundamental particles, atoms, molecules, cells, DNA, life, free will, intelligence – you name it – everything is explained by the interaction of energy which is polarized in equal and opposite directions, and which has no alternative but to obey the rules of Boolean logic and, in due course, the other numbering systems [quantum and magic numbers] and the fact that there are lots of occurrences of these.

 

Thus, the universe is one gigantic wave undergoing a phase change between nonexistence and existence, i.e it is making the transition from a trough to a peak]. The Big Bang is the trough and so the universe is, at that point, one hundred percent nonexistence (potential), but this is just as real as one hundred percent existence [complete]. The only thing that is not real is Nothing and that is the boundary enclosing the universe and whatever might lie the other side of it.

 

The vibration makes its way towards its peak, because existence is all the while pulling at nonexistence, or to put it another way, the potential for existence is all the while transforming itself into existence. At its peak, the universe is once again one hundred percent existence. It is potential energy hurtling itself into kinetic energy and beyond, to once again become potential energy.

 

The flip from trough to peak is supposed to be instantaneous, because you can only have one or the other. And from the point of view of this single primal vibration, it surely is. The phase change should theoretically take place instantaneously without recourse to space or time. For one thing, the vibration itself knows nothing about either. But these things do become a feature of the universe, and that is due to the spawning of all the little vibrations that get created, and the fact that their interference must comply with the rules imposed by Boolean logic.

 

Existence and nonexistence are the two sides of the same coin. The next question is: why are the two in contention? The reason is due to the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy.

 

But what is potential energy? Potential energy is energy in waiting, it is energy that doesn’t actually exist as such, but it would certainly like to.  It is inert energy hanging around waiting for Nothing in particular actually. Think of a ball in your hand. It contains potential energy i.e. energy waiting to be converted into kinetic energy. When the ball is released, it falls. Finally, when it hits the ground, all its energy has been converted into kinetic energy which it hands straight back to the earth.

 

So, potential energy is, in a sense, no energy. But what are the features of energy that isn’t contained within matter to give it form or substance? It is energy which, if you like, has been taken from the central pool. That central pool would like it back when it gets the chance. As if it’s borrowed energy. The ball hangs on to it, but it can’t do very much with it.

 

That’s potential energy for you. But the ball only got this energy in the first place because something took the energy away from where it originally came from i.e. the earth. So the ball builds up a memory [more like a resentment[ (or perhaps it’s the earth that remains possessive) and wishes it to return from whence it came (back to the womb?)

 

Since everything originally came from the same zero point source, so some kind of memory or recording of this is probably retained by everything, one manifestation of which is in the form of potential energy. Also, force enters the arena to impose its will and keep a lid on things, to stop things from getting away. So, everything has hooks into everything else. Or rather Mummy vibration is keeping a check on all her child vibrations. A bit like the umbilical cord, except that no cords ever get cut.

 

Existence (or is it nonexistence) simply keeping a tab on itself, keeping it all in the family. So when the first bits of matter [quarks] came into being, gluons, superstrings and gravitons all make sure they don’t ever escape from each other’s clutches.

 

Having said all this, we now run into a few dilemmas that must have faced the universe prior to the moment of the Big Bang when it was one hundred percent nonexistence. It is considered axiomatic that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So much better if the energy does not exist in the first place, which would be true of a universe that is one hundred percent nonexistence.

 

Unless of course?

 

Now, it is at this point that we take a few degrees north of centre and reorientate our discourse. What if it really is true that nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed? Curiously, the destruction of Nothing implies the creation of Something. Notwithstanding, what does this say about the total energy content of the Universe?

 

The point of it all is a universe having no mass and no energy. A positive mass this side of the origin would therefore mean an equivalent negative mass the other side of the origin. Positive mass, positive energy; negative mass, negative energy.

 

Tachyon energy. Negative energy that the heavier it got, would hurtle ever faster and faster into itself until the crucial moment when it finally weighed nothing, but with infinite energy and so became one hundred percent nonexistence; and which was feeling very pleased with itself, and which, for the sake of argument, we could call Imagination.

 

And this essay will not be much appreciated by readers whose sense of humor long ago disappeared down a black hole; like my Dad’s for instance.

 

In the beginning was Imagination; timeless, dimensionless Imagination. My Imagination no less, by which I also include your Imagination; our Imagination. But bear with me on this.

 

In the days when Imagination ruled the far end of the spectrum as the only entity, and peace, solitude and tranquility reigned supreme, Imagination caught hold of a thought – an idea. Not a big thought mind you, just a little one. What kind of thought?

 

Well, (potential well, and if you’re a physics undergraduate, you’ll know what this is), Imagination had a thought about Nothing in particular actually.

 

Nothing in particular actually.

 

No thing. In particle you are. Actual e.

 

That’s quantum mechanics for you.

 

But a thought nonetheless. And in the interval between thinking the thought and wondering what had just taken place, Imagination caught hold of another thought, another idea.

 

About Something else.

 

And this bothered Imagination a little, because it hadn’t until this moment conceptualized a means by which the two thoughts could be separated.

 

Imagination suddenly realized it knew two things with absolute certainty. The first thing it realized it knew with absolute certainty was its position, and that was it had no position. No position at all. The second thing it realized it knew with absolute certainty was when it was in that position – which was no time. No time at all.

 

But if this was true, then what could possibly serve to define the distinction between the two thoughts? At the moment of conceptualizing the Great Paradox, Imagination realized it to be an impossible situation which can’t be Nothing. It must therefore be Something.

 

In other words, there was Something in existence other than Imagination.

    ‘HO!  LEASH IT!’ cried out Imagination as the enormity of its predicament quickly overwhelmed its propensity to idleness and day dreaming. Holy Shit!

 

Imagination panicked. Furthermore, Nothing had suddenly became Something having as much uncertainty in the magnitude of its energy content as the certainty of its position which, in a space of Nothing, was absolute uncertainty, and therefore the magnitude of the energy content had to fluctuate somewhere between absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty.

 

Imagination believed at the time, and with absolute certainty, that it had no energy, and having no energy served only to add further to the confusion, because it knew precisely when it had no energy. It was, however, impossible to know this with absolute certainty because Imagination had no way of defining the interval between its two thoughts, as time had not yet come into being.

 

Thus Imagination was now confronted with the realization that there was absolute uncertainty in the extent of the timelessness. Thus, Imagination reasoned that it must have some energy, but precisely how much it could never know, only that it was probably no energy at all, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only you can never be too sure.