[Tax-chick]

According to the general theory of relativity, space, or the universe, emerged in the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. Before that, all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot.

If there's no "before," why does the author say "before"?

[beavus]

If there's no "before," why does the author say "before"?

Two reasons:

1) The reporter isn't the Helsinki physicist, and probably doesn't realize the theory is being misrepresented

2) Limitations of the vernacular. Same limitations that prevent people from understanding the big bang theory in the first place. Some of us just can't extricate the notion of linear infinite time. Not that they are wrong in their view that time is infinite, but they ARE wrong in thinking it describes the big bang theory.

But fortunately the context of the article is clear with the statement:

"Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time."

Even though, as I said, the word "before", which implicitly presumes an existence of time, is therefore an inaccurate choice for describing an absence of time.

[conservlib]

And the big bang became god, and he/she came down to earth to save us from our "original" sins?

[independentgrrl]

Before that, all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot.

If there was no "before the big bang" where does the 'extremely tiny dot" come from?

[LiteKeeper]

Even if all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot, the dot existed, and therefore time existed. Time and matter are connected...so it is approprite to refer to before the Big Bang (a theory which I disagree with - where did the tiny dot come from - and how does the Big Bang answer the question of the origin of information - an element contained in the DNA of every living cell.)