<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>If I were you I'd visit Physics.SE and read one of the <a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/big-bang">700 questions over there on this topic.</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T16:34:26.207Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T15:44:16.213Z
2018-09-17T15:44:16.213Z
Rory Alsop
<ol>
<li><p>It is impossible to measure anything that happened in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology" rel="noreferrer">Planck Era</a>, 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, "<a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/137497/28199">Most physicists believe that this is a mathematical artefact and does not describe what actually happened.</a>"</p></li>
<li><p>It would be more accurate to say that the Big Bang is the beginning of space-time, than that it "created" space-time.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>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 <em>per se</em>. Science informs our philosophy, but does not make philosophical claims.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T15:51:08.503Z
2018-09-17T17:09:52.973Z
2018-09-17T17:09:52.973Z
called2voyage
<p>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?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T15:44:45.420Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T17:00:48.213Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T19:13:50.127Z
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN). Indeed, zero is the [infimum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum) rather than the [minimum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_and_minima) of all positive reals.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-28T22:16:25.493Z
I've voted for this question to be reopened - [see meta discussion](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/450)
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
<space-time>
Beginning of space-time
Harshit Arora
# Beginning of space-time

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-17)

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?

**Tags:** space-time

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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)  
> **username_2**: 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...  
> **username_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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN). Indeed, zero is the [infimum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum) rather than the [minimum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_and_minima) of all positive reals.  
> **username_4**: I've voted for this question to be reopened - [see meta discussion](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/450)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-09-17. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

1. It is impossible to measure anything that happened in the [Planck Era](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology), 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.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/137497/28199)"
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.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-09-17. Score: 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.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/big-bang)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: 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.  

---

