3

I have read that the Big Bang created space-time, but how could this be possible? The Big Bang was itself a singularity, and a singularity is a point in space-time where the curvature becomes infinite. So how could the Big Bang create something without which its existence would not have been possible?

Alphecca
  • 696
  • 3
  • 15
Harshit Arora
  • 41
  • 2
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it really belongs on Physics (although it is probably a dupe of a few there) – Rory Alsop Sep 17 '18 at 15:44
  • The models can't predict what were in the Planck epoch ($10^{-43} s$ "after" the Big Bang). This singularity is a model whose domain start after the Planck epoch. Maybe the string theory... – peterh Sep 17 '18 at 17:00
  • 3
    Going backwards on the semi-axis of positive real numbers, we can approach the number zero as much as we like, without ever touching it. However, zero is not a strictly positive number, per se. Furthermore, $f(x)=1/x~$ is not defined in zero, since its value there would be infinity, which, as any self-respecting mathematician will tell you, is not a number. Indeed, zero is the infimum rather than the minimum of all positive reals. – Lucian Sep 17 '18 at 19:13
  • I've voted for this question to be reopened - see meta discussion – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Sep 28 '18 at 22:16

2 Answers2

6

  1. It is impossible to measure anything that happened in the Planck Era, so physicists are unsure whether the universe actually began from a singularity or whether the singularity in the Big Bang theory represents an inability to describe the universe at that time. In fact, "Most physicists believe that this is a mathematical artefact and does not describe what actually happened."

  2. It would be more accurate to say that the Big Bang is the beginning of space-time, than that it "created" space-time.

The Big Bang is a description of how the universe evolved in its earliest stages, not exactly a resolution to why the universe came to be. The latter is really a question for philosophy, not something that can be addressed by science per se. Science informs our philosophy, but does not make philosophical claims.

called2voyage
  • 6,312
  • 1
  • 32
  • 62
4

There are questions on this topic on Physics.SE, but they require a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Your question has some incorrect assumptions around the Big Bang. One being the definition of singularity - in reality this singularity is a point where certain variables may tend toward infinity, meaning our mathematics breaks down.

And the creation of space-time doesn't require anything to cause it - in fact it specifically implies that in our universe nothing could cause it, as there was nothing before it (there was no before)

If I were you I'd visit Physics.SE and read one of the 700 questions over there on this topic.

Rory Alsop
  • 5,067
  • 1
  • 26
  • 44
  • Rather than say "nothing could cause it", you should probably say something like "the big bang could have happened out of nothing". "Nothing could cause it" is too familiar a term that can cloud what you're saying. – userLTK Sep 17 '18 at 16:34