What Happened Before the Big Bang?

2010, Science  -   109 Comments
Ratings: 5.45/10from 31 users.

What Happened Before the Big Bang?They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin? For nearly a hundred years, we thought we had the answer: a big bang some 14 billion years ago.

But now some scientists believe that was not really the beginning. Our universe may have had a life before this violent moment of creation.

Horizon takes the ultimate trip into the unknown, to explore a dizzying world of cosmic bounces, rips and multiple universes, and finds out what happened before the big bang.

Neil Turok, Director of Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, working with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, has proposed a radical new answer to cosmology’s deepest question: What banged?

Answer: Instead of the universe inexplicably springing into existence from a mysterious initial singularity, the Big Bang was a collision between two universes like ours existing as parallel membranes floating in a higher-dimensional space that we’re not aware of.

One bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles, each one spelling the end of a universe and the beginning of a new one. Not one bang, but many.

Sir Roger Penrose has changed his mind about the Big Bang. He now imagines an eternal cycle of expanding universes where matter becomes energy and back again in the birth of new universes and so on and so on.

More great documentaries

109 Comments / User Reviews

  1. never argue with a fool. those watching may start to wonder which one of you it is!
    this goes for both sides of you guys.
    kids these days. how they gonna act!

  2. I have rarely read such an ungrammatical, misspelled, childish, narrow-minded and illogical pack of rubbish in one place in my life. A descent into idiocy.

  3. There seems to be a rather large assumption here; that the Big Bang hypothesis is correct. This hypothesis was created by the monk Lemaitre to reconcile the observable universe with a creator.

    It was embellished by Gamow (and others).

    No one here, so far as I have read the comments, who mentions the much more likely hypothesis that the universe was always here and always will be.

    I suggest that one looks at, for example, the Thunderbolts Project and discover that all 'activity' in the universe is a continuum of plasma (electro-magnetism).

    Theories such as the Big Bang, rely on mathematics and fitting the territory to the map, not the other way around. Mathematics can not explain anything.

    The more we use mathematics to explain in the inexplicable, the more we are led down a path that goes nowhere because it cannot be observed. Science should be observable not speculative.

    Did billions of geld find the so-called 'God' particle? No.

  4. The Big Bang from a single singularity sounds ridiculous if you ask me. There's no way the this entire universe came from a single...atom? molecule? I'm confused. But honestly, even if their are or were other dimensions, which I do believe exist...look even beyond that. Everything that is and was and will be came from a creator. This all doesn't come from matter or an evergy. The energy had to have been put there by something else. This is where mankind and science has become ignorant. It's all because of God. There is no other possible way. I'm not an active church freak, but I do believe there is a divine power that see things that we don't. I don't even know if we have the senses or comprehension to begin to understand where we came from even if it was told to us.

    1. It is not atom or molecule. Plus the watered down version that is given on this website, doesn't even come close to the real definition. That is some really complex stuff.

      Then the obvious question arises, who created the creator?

      We do not have the senses or comprehension to understand a lot of stuff going on this universe. We make sense of it using mathematics.

    2. God is
      eternal, having never been created. He was there, like you can't find an end of the sky. :)

    3. Yeah. I'll say the singularity was never created and eternal. Do you have any evidence to prove otherwise

    4. The reasoning for god existing seems to be that people feel the universe must have been created, because it could not simply exist. Then you describe god as being eternal, no one created the creator he is just there. You throw away your logic for god existing and let the story be finished once he does. So which way do you want it? No god or a series of gods one greater than the next on into infinity to create each other?. Monotheism is the approach that makes least sense of all from atheists to pagans and everything in between. It also has coincidentally destroyed all competitors ...
      This says a lot about the long term fundamental nature of human spiritualism, it takes the path of least resistance and greatest comfort. Nothing but emotions people have constructed into something of use to themselves, as is our way to structure the world and everything in it to our service. God serves man. If this were not true then he would not continue to change as do our geopolitical and social situations.

    5. I'll put it down as an unsubstantiated claim. There is a temporal edge to space or what you call "sky"

  5. What caused the Big Bang? What triggered it? And do we have any idea what was going on prior the Big Bang? Yes, there is a new idea, the answer about what was going on prior to the Big Bang, why the Big Bang happened and what was the reason?

    According to the new hypothesis, the geometric interpretation of the Lorentz’s radical says that the Big Bang happened in an incredible way. If the speed of light in the universe is maximal, a new hypothesis explains that the Big Bang is the cause of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.

    Many theories suggest that when the intergalactic speed reaches the speed of light, then the universe is maximally expanded. But a new hypothesis about the universe talks back. When we think that the universe is maximally expanded, it is actually maximally compressed, the galaxies are in a singular state and at this moment they collide with the speed of light. The Big Bang is a result of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.

    This is not mentioned in any theory of the Big Bang yet. This is an extraordinary idea with the proof.

  6. I think the problem here, dealt with more or less straightforwardly by Hawking, is that before the big bang there was no space-time. Ergo, there was nothing to observe. Since science must observe to hypothesize and to collect data, this question cannot be answered in the domain of natural science.

  7. there was no big bang its all a guess just because everyone watch neil degrass tyson now they believe him.god created the word unreal why do people believe in science its just a guess they dont no forsure .Same with the multi verse s*it space just goes on that it give it a rest

    1. as you stated, it's just a guess...a very educated guess. and religious beliefs are, well, guesses. Guesses that came before the era of enlightenment, before people started using reason, challenging faith, and using the scientific method which at least gave them some kind of rational justification for their beliefs (visual representation, something religion has failed to acquire). so why would you follow an ancient book with no supporting evidence and then laugh at the people who actually go out of their way to find possible answers?

  8. There are multiple universes. In fact, just last year, scientists found what is called a cold spot in one area of the universe that basically proves another universe is pushing up against this one. There unlimited universes yet one cannot physically travel out of this one and not only that, there are unlimited possibilities of a human life taking place in multiple universe as well as humans living out the entire possibilities of other humans. It doesn't end there or with just humans. That is just the start of what in this century will be a complex topic but in the 29th century, 200 years after the first time machine was created by a female scientist under a one global world, there is a war raging and not all of this planet yet it has to do with now and thousands of years before this moment. My book that comes out late year will explain it. As for a God, that comes down to personal opinions at this time. One can say there is no God/s yet provide zero proof. One can say there is a God/s and give some proof per here we are and cause and effect but still not prove a God in truth so both sides lose on that topic.

  9. i'm not sure about these multiverses or whatever. but i do long to know what was beforee the big bang. i think about it a lot, trying to find the answer. how silly of me when the scientists can't even find the answer yet. o well.

    1. Rachel
      this might sound sarcastic but it is not meant to be. remember that time came into existence with the big bang. so it this approach is right there was no "before". that is a strange concept to grasp for many but necessary

    2. Is it possible that time, which is really an illusion, is the reason that you're unable to answer the question? If you see everything as 'one moment encapsulating one everything', not a length of time moving forward from some starting point, then you may start to see the truth of it. It's our illusion of time that keeps us from experiencing the 'one moment'. When you experience it you see how it's really the same thing as the 'one everything'. If you've never experienced it, it's impossible to imagine it. In fact, even having experienced it, one can only imagine it in a limited way. Perhaps the truth can't be 'understood'. The truth is an 'experience' of the 'whole' in a complete way. In an infinite 'moment' outside of time.

  10. The preceding discussion does not address the basis question which is "why does anything exist". The communication constraints (speed of light) on detecting intelligent life on other planets in our solar system may take thousands of years; figuring out why anything exists at all may not happen.

  11. One of Penrose's WMAP rings was formed by the "big bang", which was not so much a bang as a collapse (as in, the collapse giving rise to the formation of our black hole universe). The second ring is an echo of the same event reflected inward from an event horizon, the inner energy boundary between our black hole universe and what lies outside (a different dimension, with totally different (but similar) manifestations of space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws.

    Even God (if there was one) could not possibly escape. But by all means, believe in your superstitions of a personal, ego- and God-centered creator of the universe.

  12. if god is so powerful as to make a universe where is its tongue? too obscure to be a real god? the logic and numeracy in this universe all adds up except for its hide and seek creator.

  13. The universe created itself.
    MAN created GOD!

  14. blocked. gay as hell.

  15. In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God, and the word was GOD.

    1. Are you talking about the English language, didn't know it was invented then.

    2. Introibo ad altare Dei.
      Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.

    3. The void awaits surely all them that weave the wind.

      Had Pyrrhus not fallen by a beldam’s hand in Argos or,
      Julius Caesar not been knifed to death?

      They are not to be thought away.

      They are lodged, fettered, in the room of
      the infinite possibilities they have ousted.

      But, can those things have been possible,
      seeing that they never were?

      Or was that only possible which came to pass?

      Weave, weaver of the wind.

      It must be a movement, then,
      an actuality of the possible as 'being' possible.

      Fed and feeding brains about me:
      and in my mind, the sloth of the underworld,
      shy of brightness, shifting her dragon scaly folds.

      The soul is, in a manner, all that is.

      Thought is the thought of thought.

      Form the form of forms.

      Tranquility! Sudden! Vast! Candescent!

      Form of forms.

      Thought of thought.

      Weave, weaver of the wind.


      ~ James Joyce


  16. I don't have any sort of formal education in mathematics or physics, but the concept of something out of nothing at all doesn't sit right with me. I think a lot of things but then the frustration behind that is that I don't have the education to know whether or not I should even bother exploring an idea again. So in my opinion, me adding -why- I don't like certain things is probably just a waste of time.

    Perhaps the beginning of our universe is beyond our comprehension as humans (or humans in our current state, who knows). Maybe it's so complex that finding out how our universe came about is only one facet of the diamond *shrugs*

    But I do feel it satisfies something deep inside to at least contemplate and seek the truth of our origins, and is therefore a worthwhile endeavour. Why do we do anything?

    Anyone else as/more curious about what happens at the end of our universe?

    1. I am curious, and yes, nothing wrong with at least thinking about things that may seem inexplicable, don't need no book learning for that. By thinking you may be forming a resolve to delve into science into more depth, even just to see what the great scientists have to say about your query's. Never know where that might lead.

  17. i know im only astronomy minor but how bout the big bang did happen but only in a series of unverses traveling arouond much as solar systems are traveling in our universe. and "our" big bang dissolved time and space and it for lack of a better word started over again in the area of our big bang. so time and space have been going on in a series of universes for a longer period of time. but then again these cluster of universes might come together at some point and create a mega big bang of all these different universes only to realize that there is another series of massive multiverses and there is a chain of that that goesforever

  18. Time is the only key to understand the universe past, present, and future.

  19. Don't you just love science! :)

  20. Since science is only concerned with making observations of natural phenomena in real time, gathering material evidence accordingly and then designing experimental protocols to form hypotheses and conclusions---how can anyone who understands the self-limiting constraints of science reasonably expect science to answer even one single question before space-time and matter-energy began? To even ask it to do so, sets up an impossible paradox... like dividing by zero. It cannot be done without producing nonsensical science and broken down mathematics. This is the domain of metaphysics and its role is properly assigned to the experience of religious understanding, philosophical contemplation and private conclusion. What is so difficult about this distinction for Bible fundamentalists to grasp? Even the Roman Catholic Church concedes this as well as most main stream Protestant denominations. But every 25 years this Hydra-headed beast of ignorance and hubris raises its stubborn heads and starts hissing about things it doesn't even understand correctly. Jeez. If there was a retributive God of the Heavens, He would smite these knuckleheads mute for holding up the growing knowledge of His very own creative impulse.

    1. You were doing so well Larry, you brought me right to the apex of the observation between science and metaphysics. Ironically i was thinking along these lines the other day; The difference between metaphysics and theoretical physics are words, there is none. When someone hangs there shingle under the banner of theoretical physics/science it gives them the clout in the "real world" to draw a crowd. Lary to me metaphysics is when a light comes on and we see it so clearly, an interlude where one grasps the beauty of the some total only for a moment, total reality derived through circumstantial evidence. If you are walking through the forest and you come upon a turtle siting on a stump two feet off the ground you know instantly that someone put it there, this is circumstantial evidence. There is no correlation between god/religion and metaphysics. god/religion falls under, "zero or infinity" a pure unadulterated cop out.

    2. I made no claims about the efficacy of metaphysical 'ways of knowing'. I wouldn't begin to judge it one way or the other. It's a foreign area of curiosity for me but it doesn't keep me up nights.

      Follow onto SonnyCorbi~ Yeah I got you...I was just clarifying.

    3. Larry i wasn't making any snod remarks, just going along with the flow.

      Actually it doesn't keep me up nights either. It's interesting to me and always has been that's all. The way i see it most of the answers science is seeking will find support and infrastructure by way of the subatomic state
      of being, everything is derived from concept one way or another not the obverse. The more we delve into the Atom the more we find that each element within the Atom brakes down into pure energy, matter does not exist in a
      primary state but only in a secondary state of becoming and evolving; energy in form, density/mass processing at a particular frequency.

      This conversation isn't going anywhere, just observing, for now, that's all. Larry you have a good command of your thoughts i enjoyed you comment.


    4. and please keep up the input on proceeding doc's.

  21. isn't mathematics the most precise science?

    1. IMHO...Mathematics is pure abstraction and to the extent that it cannot be falsified (it is already exempted from experimental falsification as a part of its 'a priori' identity), it can't be science. It's more of a language through which science is expressed.
      I get you though...in a way you're right...and wrong.

  22. What kind of toy they are all playing with? Looks interesting ;)

  23. I believe everything is infinitely small and infinitely large in all directions and no matter how hard man wraps his brain around the beginning or the end of anything, it's impossible for us to understand.

    I guess I believe everything is a fractal and we're just a minute piece of nothing and everything at the same time!


    1. A fractal universe I could wrap my head around. I think this whole expansion thing is a result of a short period of observation. If you were to look at a sine wave function at a short moment, you could say "it's expanding forever, and even accelerating!". But if you waited long enough you'd see it would slow down, contract a bit, and then expand a bit. Not necessarily contract to singularity nor expand to infinity. But I am not a physicist, I just only like to toy with my mind. Like ripples in a pond... In that sense I guess I prefer a fractal universe, or a steady state universe. What I can't wrap my head around is what describe the laws of everything. It gives me the impression something had to "define" the laws. But if that is the case, what defined the "something that defined the laws", in a recursive manner?

    2. haha I'm no physicist either. I made it to grade 11 then got a job welding pipelines and went with it to this day :)

      What you said is similar to what Carl Sagan said, - "In many cultures the customary answer is that a god, or gods, created the universe out of nothing. but if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must, of course, ask the next question: where did god come from?"

      I just can't grasp the idea of nothing before something, it's mind numbing :D

      peace out!

    3. We should all be very familiar with the concept of something from nothing! Do you remember where you were before you were born? :)

    4. If every spatial dimension is infinite...how come the universe is expanding? How can that happen if it's already infinite? Sorry to throw a wrench in the works.

  24. i agree with dutch..since i was like 9 whenever i heard about 'the big bang' I thought well it would make sense that something came before that. This is exactly 1 one reason why the zeitgeist's 'resource based economy' is a great idea for the progression of human knowledge. More opportunity for education and more scientists. Limited scientists only = limited ideas.

  25. cant believe we invest money in trying to figure this out it cant be done, these theories are crazy

    1. most of the scientists in this doc were from the perimeter institute in Canada. while they do receive some government grants (like most businesses and schools) most of the money comes from Mike Lazaridis (founder research in motion)170 million to date personally and 30 million from his company and also private donors. they work free of direction from government and business and are not expected to make a profit. also so far they gave 100 million to the local university and the facilities are credited for attracting talented profs to the local universities since the facility is open to the profs and graduate students free of charge. so it is not your money being spent but we all get the benifits

  26. Friging science is always playing catch up with common sense, I have lost count of the time's i've said "Oh really...i thought that was common sense...you only just figured it out? wow congratz, now write scientific paper telling me what i've known since i was a kid".

    its like having a conversation with a 2 year old which believe's they have a invisible friend....you just got to acept it and wait for them to grow up and get some common sense.

    1. Common sense may be a good guide in some disciplines such as psychiatry but when one seeks to comprehend the facts of nature you do better to go by evidence, not by common sense. Common sense once led human beings to feel certain the Earth is flat. In the twentieth century, Albert Einstein had to overcome the popular addiction to common sense in order to get people to recognize that space is curved and is no more a flat three dimensions than the surface of the planet is a flat two dimensions.

      Some books and schools have an agenda not to pursue facts wherever they lead but rather to coax you into accepting their religious convictions. An egregious example of this kind is "Discovery Institute" (Seattle) and "Institute for Creation Research" (El Cajon CA). However this Canadian outfit, Perimeter, seems to be on the level, and apparently has the respect of Cambridge University, not just some joke like Oral Roberts "University" or Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" or Ken Ham's "Creation Museum" so I think it's for real.

    2. You're spot on!

    3. I have to disagree buddy. There are lots of reasons but 2 above all others are extremely counter intuitive, Quantum Entanglement (which has spawned quantum computing and photon and qubit teleportation) and the other is the nature of a vacuum. (how matter and anti matter forms and annihilates)

  27. how about the proposal that sh it just is men?

  28. tree starts from a seed

    what happened before the seed

  29. we wont be able to grasp it..with our linear mindset.

  30. Wouldn't it make more sense that there always was and never wasn't. Rather than a big bang creating existence, just evolution of existence in the form of a bang (and retraction). Ff that's the way it works then wouldn't it also make sense the the universe(s) exist(s) as a wave constantly expanding and retracting going through different frequencies of the electrospectrum whether through wormholes or whichever means, which cause these multiple dimensions or universes on different frequencies. Big expansion and big retraction infinitely(?) cycling through different frequencies. Just a simple guys thought anyway, it doesn't make perfect sense but it's an idea worth looking into in my opinion anyway.

  31. There was some interesting stuff, but the documentary felt pretty half-assed.

    "Hey, how many shots of smart people playing with a puzzle can we get in here?"

  32. They didn't even mention Stephen Hawkings at all did they? Anyway, until God allows a scientist (or perhaps a theologen) to gain the insight needed into the creation of the universe, and the mathmatics to prove it, I think it will remain an unsolvable mystery.

    1. Please leave your ridiculous God out of science.

    2. would say Mojo its possible there is a god but obvioulsy not as we know it but cant rule it out

    3. James, we may as well assume that the Power Rangers are real. Why should God get this special treatment over all the over imaginary characters invented by man?

    4. The thing with God is that you can't prove that GOD doesn't exist and you can't prove that GOD exist. So it is left to people to decide what they need or want.

      If science tried to prove that GOD exist, it would come to be proven to exist, but science is always trying to prove that GOD does not exist, therefore it doesn't exist until it does.

      In the doc: Around the World in 80 Faiths, we see how belief systems are as old as we can remember. People of faith have been flowing for centuries towards the belief that one day Science will prove that GOD exist, they are waiting for science to want to. But if science does find GOD, it will be something no one could have imagined!


    5. You can't prove neither of those simply because he isn't there! In the same sense, you can't prove nor disprove the existence of, in Dawkins' words, the flying teapot in the sky!

      Everything we have learned about God(s) throughout the years indicates that it derived from cult(s) of the ancient world, very much man-made. Without the scriptures, you simply would not even be able to consider the concept of, for instance, the God of the three Abrahamic religions. Why then even begin to consider the possibility of God when we know where the scriptures come from and that they are of such poor quality, making them unlikely to prove anything other than a big hoax?

    6. God is a spool of transparent thread that scientist and theist knit to create a future. He isn't and he could be.

      One day someone will invent (or discover as scientist like to say) a GOD that fits and merges science and spirituality...as for religions....they will dissapears instantly in that moment.

      As Achems Razor wrote:"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory this has already happened."
      Possibly it has happened to some...and frankly if it had happened to me, quite possibly i would not utter a word about it!

    7. Meh, that's just marijuana-induced douche-bag-philosophy.

      There is surely an answer out there to why we exist, where it all came from, and where it's all going; such an answer would have nothing to do with spirituality, however, as that is nothing more than a highly philosophical term coined by men to explain emotion.
      All that is is the physical. Furthermore, we will never FIND the answer, because we will be gone within a few hundred years.

    8. I'm not sure if you'll read this (6 months on), but Stuart Kaufman, the Complexity Theorist, does just what you say in his book "Reinventing the Sacred." He recommends a way of perceiving the concept of god within the emergent qualities of the universe. He argues against the reductionist model of science, saying that it will never produce answers to one area of understanding by applying the laws of another (Physics in no way can account for the emergence of biology, economy, or anything other than physics). So rather than looking to a creator god, and anthropomorphizing it (or even making it subject to concepts of merely earth origin), he suggests rejoicing in the undeniable Creativity in the Universe, which should be obvious to Theists, Deists, Scientists, Atheists... all involved. It's a good one.

    9. only took a minute. Let me look into Stuart Kaufman and i'll be back.

      " is the "mind making something actual" happen in the physical world, and — big jump — that consciousness itself consists in this quantum coherent state as lived by the organism"
      "Shall we use the God word? It is our choice. Mine is a tentative "yes". I want God to mean the vast ceaseless creativity of the only universe we know of, ours. What do we gain by using the God word? I suspect a great deal, for the word carries with it awe and reverence. If we can transfer that awe and reverence, not to the transcendental Abrahamic God of my Israelite tribe long ago, but to the stunning reality that confronts us, we will grant permission for a renewed spirituality, and awe, reverence and responsibility for all that lives, for the planet"
      Stuart Kaufman

      People of faith have been "flowing" for centuries towards the belief that one day Science will prove that GOD exist, they are waiting for science to want to. But if science does find GOD, it will be something no one could have imagined!"
      I will add...because it was too close to home

    11. Hey Mojo...i am not trying to convince you of nothing, my words are not digging like a dog in your mind, it is digging in mine.
      What you bring forward is quite valid as an "idea", physical is every thing!
      But even those scientists you follow fastidiously know that until they can conclusively prove the non-existence of GOD, they are stuck with it's light above their thoughts.
      I entertain the thought that i am GOD and the day a scientist can loudly and proudly say i am GOD, he will find what GOD is 'cause he won't have to go search any where.
      No religions has ever aloud some 1 to claim to be GOD, i say we don't even exist or exist separately from any thing physical, therefore we are all.
      Like they say; an ocean of separate drops.

    12. @Azilda

      You say: "But even those scientists you follow fastidiously know that until they can conclusively prove the non-existence of GOD, they are stuck with it's light above their thoughts."

      I think that is very wrong. Scientists never tried to prove the non-existence of God. They're not bothered with God at all. They're just curious about the "things" around us. That's all.

      If those curiosity "trips" are considered by some people as threat to the existence of God, that is their problem.

    13. "All that is, is the physical"??
      Well no, all that is, is energy. Physical/matter, is the illusion, as is space and time. Try to find anything physical/matter, in an Atom.
      There is none, an Atom is basically empty space, 99.9999% empty, only energy.
      In Q.M. by observation, by observing, we collapse the waveform. Strictly science, nothing else!

    14. Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I wanted to. I was, of course, speaking as if there was a clash between the spiritual and the non-spiritual--which I chose to call the physical for metaphorical and rhetorical purposes.

    15. So Achems...all there is is energy...then may be energy is GOD or energod. We seem to disagree while we agree although as i wrote earlier ...you have read and learned a lot more about science "writing" than i ever did, ever will.
      Simply said GOD can and will be invented into something that will merge Science with energetic beliefs....one day, all is required is continued arguments and patience.

    16. Yes, all there is, is energy. Again I say, science is not an invention, nor does it invent anything.

      Religion, philosophy, spirituality will never offer any emperical proofs of the creation of the universe, only science will, by the scientific method.

      "Philosophy bakes no bread"! the same goes for religion and spirituality.

    17. Yes, understand now what it is you were saying.
      Thank you.

    18. If all that exist is energy than yes science is the inventor of "everything", and science has always existed even in ways we no longer describe it as.
      It is like a car meeting energy at the half way point, on each side of that point is infinity. The car came from nowhere and so did the energy.

      That's why i think one day science will instantly
      "invent""ascertain""discover""conceive""comprehend"formulate" GOD in a way that no one will be able to doubt, in a way unthought of yet, otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange.
      Now i am not looking for followers, just people allowing me to be me and you to be you and them to be them.

    19. Look how much fun we would be missing if CnN left GOD out of science!
      It is true that you don't make yourself clear, specially here:
      "There is surely an answer out there to why we exist, where it all came from, and where it's all going; such an answer would have nothing to do with spirituality, however, as that is nothing more than a highly philosophical term coined by men to explain emotion. Furthermore, we will never FIND the answer, because we will be gone within a few hundred years".
      So it won't be spiritual...will it be energetic? please tell us what you *think* it will be.

    20. @Vlatko
      I said: "But even those scientists you follow fastidiously know that until they can conclusively prove the non-existence of GOD, they are stuck with it's light above their thoughts."

      You said:I think that is very wrong. Scientists never tried to prove the non-existence of God. They're not bothered with God at all. They're just curious about the "things" around us. That's all.

      The whole world is either trying to prove that GOD exist or God does not exist, or ar least have an opinion about either or...The scientists are no exception to this.
      I am not saying that a scientist who enters his lab or office in the morning starts his/her day with that goal. But we have to admit that this question has been above our head for ever, and if there is someone who is going to be able to settle that once and for all, it will most likely be a scientist, not a priest....and they know that...and i also think they are getting closer energetically, although this could take an other 1000 yrs or more!
      In the very big picture we are more like tachyon particles, too unstable to be treated as existent.

    21. The only scientists that are bothered with God are the scientists that are religious because of their upbringings, and a scientist because of their own choices once the indoctrination was complete. Any scientist that was brought up with free thought will realise that God is too ridiculous a thesis even to be taken seriously.

      There won't be a need to prove nor disprove the Abrahamic God in the next 1000 years, or ever, because we know he was invented by Bronze age brutes of the Middle-East--like most Gods (although not always in the Middle-East)--and that the world and the universe we all live in came about through slow and gradual change rather than magic.

      And the question whether the Abrahamic God is real or not has certainly not been looming over our heads "forever". He was invented some 2500 years ago--humanity has been around for nearly 100 times longer and nearly 10 times longer in civilized form.

      I'm sorry if I come across as rude, but there can be no tolerance with ignorance or we should surely all go back to the Stone age again.

    22. You are talking religion with your Abrahamic God, i am not. I am talking about the workings of energy itself and yes scientists have been puzzled about this for eons. You call GOD "he" as if you think he should be a person. God to me is NOT a person or a creature, it is pure energy but even those words do not fit the mold.
      I don't go with fixed ideals by others.

      Don't be sorry to be rude, it's not the first time. Tone down, there are a lot of people on earth who do not think like you. Telling people they are douchebags, ignorant or whatever word fits your angry mood won't do you any good or them either. This is a discussion forum and the beauty of it is that it is accessible to any one.
      Travel, it's as good as education and it teaches one to be civil.
      When it comes to words be "vegetarian", not a mad DOG earthling.

    23. Please leave your ridiculous atheism out of science!


    24. And tell me why your god would not "allow" insight to the creation of the universe, did not know there was patents pending? Or is your god scared scientists might prove the non-existence of your god? Your god seems to be scared of us mere mortals.

      Again your god is playing favorite's when you say a (theologen), all a theologen can do is quote the bible told me so. Circular logic, if ever a theologen used maths to prove it, all it would do is lead to the proofs of no gods. Again will tell you, science and religion do not mix!

    25. We're not in Heaven yet, Mr. Razor. That's what eternity is for---to learn and understand deeper and deeper and deeper still until forever. We will understand it all eventually. Litterally.

      Our whole earthly lives is just like reading the title only of a science book's dust jacket. We haven't even cracked the book yet. What do you think we'll do for all eternity? Play harps and eat manna all day? We'll learn and know about God and His Character as well as all that He has done and created, one moment at at time forever. I bet I'll even get to examine dinosaurs if I wanted to (and I do, and I will)!

      But yes, you're correct, perhaps God withholds some information from us so that we don't do like you suggested and try to use it to prove there is no God at all. He's not scared of us, He cares for us, and until the time, we need not know or understand everything.

      I suspect we'll only know what it was like before the Bing Bang after we get to Heaven and we ask Him.

      Peace to you!

    26. Its all about him, isn't it? (your god). Your god demands allegiance, worship and grovelling forever, (HOW BORING)!!

      I personally think that he, she, or it, does not like woosies!!

      So thanks, but no thanks, I grovel and worship no one!!

  33. They don't really explain what happened at and before the big bang (birth of our universe as we know it)...they just have have an idea an they try to tweak the mathematics until it fits their theory...the only difference between them and other people who think of the universe is that they could transform their thoughts into mathematics...but their basic ideas are very simple and I'm sure that many nonscientist thought of those ideas maybe even greater ones!

  34. Does anyone know how to imporve the viewing stream ? Lately, every time I try to watch something, I get the frequent pause and re-start - Which of course is so annoying ! Is it my computer and internet connection ? Or is there an easy fix ? Thanks !

    1. I was experiencing the same problem. I was using mozilla (the beta) and youtube vids kept pausing nonstop. I switched to chrome and youtube, netflix, etc timeouts are to a minimum. DOnt get me wrong, I still love Mozilla.

    2. Haha, "pausing nonstop". what an excellent oxymoron. (not that I'm giving you s***. It just caught my eye)

    3. on most you tube videos (like this one) you can drop to a lower resolution just click on the 360p (bottom right) and drop to 240p. that should speed the video. also if you hit play and then pause when it starts wait approx five mins to let video buffer and try play again.

  35. I think not only is big bang theory poppycock for many reasons but that m-theory is a poor candidate with many flaws aswell for many of the same reasons and some others.

    1. You think the BB and M-theory are poppycock and flawed?

      When you say something like that, then you are supposed to "give" your reasons, don't just leave us hanging! Am sure we all want to hear.

  36. According to "Stephen Hawking" on his book "The grand design"
    "M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity. For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for the complete theory of the universe."

    And the universe can create itself out of nothing! Gives good argument in his book about spontaneous creation.

    Don't want to quote his whole book, so if anyone is interested, get the book.

    Also another good read is theoretical physicist Julian Barbour, "The end of time" Re: time is an illusion.

  37. Refer the Dasamahavidyas!

  38. No question this is one of the better science documentaries. No prejudgment; several perspectives given equal and uneditorialized voice.

  39. Nothing different from what the Hindu's in India believe!

  40. Old and tired doc. String Theory is 30+ years old with no proof so far. Multi-verses? Michio Kaku once said, "This even affects morals. I mean, why should I obey the law knowing that in some universe, if I comit a crime I'm gonna get away with it." I'll be glad to send him a card in prison. Their speculations are more meta-physics than science. Theoretical physics ia turning into pure math. Which implies that if you don't understand the math, you don't understand reality. Max Tegmark from MIT actually said that, "The universe is, in reality, pure mathematics." Yes, there are dozens of competing theories. That, in itself, shows that something is very wrong with even the fundamentals.

  41. Theories abound... "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory this has already happened."

    1. uh-huh works pour moi x2

    2. Gotta love Doug Adams...

    3. And the PURPOSE for such would be?

    4. The "PURPOSE"??
      Since you no doubt are heading into your teleological hyperbole, with your obfuscating superflous malfeasance.
      Just expatiating the search for the heuristic optimization for the pedagogical aspects, eliminating the need for execrable comments.

  42. Fantastic.

  43. oh, man loved it! 8D

  44. look up Thomas Cambell and watch his lectures on youtube if your interested in this

  45. Physisists at CERN hope to use the LHC to "recreate" the conditions at the point of the big bang. I've seen many docu's concerning this subject, and one theory I've yet to see put forth is this: If the big bang can be "recreated" by COLLIDING particles, then it seems, a similar collision of two objects also created the real big bang. Only these objects were on such a massive scale, it defies our small perseption. Perhaps the big bang is actually the big smash. If this is true, then the size of these theoretical objects would only be surpassed by their distance from eachother, otherwise, we'd be able to see one. Or perhaps they are dark matter.

    1. They re-create the conditions millionths of split seconds after the big bang....... not the big bang its self. So its not saying colliding "somethings" are the big bang, the colliding paricales were created at the big bang, n started colliding moments after.

    2. The way I understood it the collisions in particle accelerators are a means to create matter out of energy for an instant. So when they say they "recreate" the conditions immediately following the big bang, they create an environement where there is much energy floating around with comparatively little matter. To achieve this situation they apply energy to accelerate the particels to incredibly high speeds, their kinetic energy upon collision is then responsible for this instant of a high energy/low matter situation. That in turn doesn't mean that only a collision could lead to such a state, it is merely the best approach to simulate such conditions within the existing universe using present day technology. From that pov your proposal turns the underlying logic around. At some point after physicists accepted the big bang theory where matter is formed out of energy in a universe initially filled with energy alone, someone probably came up with the idea that this situation can be simulated by colliding particles with comparatively huge amounts of kinetic energy.
      To give a different example, the fact that the devices that simulate hydrogen bomb explosions achieve fusion electrically doesn't imply that fusion is generally an electrical process. It is not in the original H bomb and apparently it is not in the sun either.
      But then again, I'm not a physicist and this is just my own humble interpretation.

  46. Nice doc.

  47. plenty to ponder, another really good thought provoking horizon program.
    thanks for posting vladko.