Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe

by Brian Clegg

According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public what came before the Big Bang? We all know on some level what the Big Bang is, but we don't know how it became the accepted theory, or how we might know what came before. In Before the Big Bang, Brian Clegg (the critically acclaimed author of Upgrade Me and The God Effect) explores the history of this remarkable concept. From the earliest creation myths, through Hershel's realization that the Milky Way was one of many galaxies, to on-going debates about Black Holes, this is an incredible look at the origins of the universe and the many theories that led to the acceptance of the Big Bang. But in classic scientist fashion Clegg challenges the notion of the "Big Bang" itself, and raises the deep philosophical question of why we might want to rethink the origin of the universe. This is popular science at its best, exploratory, controversial, and utterly engrossing.

Genres: Science, Physics, Nonfiction, History, Astronomy, Environment, Nature

321 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 29, 2006

About the author

Brian's latest books, Ten Billion Tomorrows and How Many Moons does the Earth Have are now available to pre-order. He has written a range of other science titles, including the bestselling Inflight Science, The God Effect, Before the Big Bang, A Brief History of Infinity, Build Your Own Time Machine and Dice World.

Along with appearances at the Royal Institution in London he has spoken at venues from Oxford and Cambridge Universities to Cheltenham Festival of Science, has contributed to radio and TV programmes, and is a popular speaker at schools. Brian is also editor of the successful www.popularscience.co.uk book review site and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Brian has Masters degrees from Cambridge University in Natural Sciences and from Lancaster University in Operational Research, a discipline originally developed during the Second World War to apply the power of mathematics to warfare. It has since been widely applied to problem solving and decision making in business.

Brian has also written regular columns, features and reviews for numerous publications, including Nature, The Guardian, PC Week, Computer Weekly, Personal Computer World, The Observer, Innovative Leader, Professional Manager, BBC History, Good Housekeeping and House Beautiful. His books have been translated into many languages, including German, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Polish, Turkish, Norwegian, Thai and even Indonesian.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have read a fair number of books on cosmology and related subjects over the last couple of years, but I'm afraid to say that this was easily one of the worst ones. The author's main goal seems to be to approach the current mainstream theory - Big Bang with inflation - in a critical way, and suggest alternatives; the one he likes most is Steinhardt and Turok's ekpyrotic model, in which our universe collides with a parallel "brane-world" every trillion years or so, giving a cyclic universe where the collisions are the events normally called Big Bangs.

This is all fine as far as it goes, but Clegg does a terrible job of explaining the story, making frequent mistakes both with the history and the physics. For example, his account of how Hubble, Lemaître and Eddington interacted to produce the first tentative account of the Big Bang is almost completely incorrect, and his description of inflation leaves me seriously wondering whether he understands how it's supposed to work. I hope Steinhardt and Turok are taking the pragmatic view that all publicity is good publicity; it would be easy to slip over into feeling that, with friends like this, who needs enemies.

If you want to understand the issues around inflation and the ekpyrotic model, which I at least think are very interesting, I recommend reading Guth's The Inflationary Universe followed by Steinhardt and Turok's Endless Universe. If you'd like an authoritative account of the history up to circa 1970, Kragh's Cosmology and Controversy is excellent. If you're looking for an entertaining popular account of the Big Bang, check out Simon Singh's Big Bang, which is better written and more fun. I honestly can't think of anyone who would benefit from reading Clegg. It's just plain bad.

[Lucie · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I had realized Before the Big Bang Theory was about the physics of astronomy (astrophysics) before I started it, I would not have started it. The very idea is daunting. However, Brian Clegg is a very accessible author. He brings hard concepts down to everyday language that can be understood by someone who does not have advanced degrees in physics or whatever. I did understand the concepts he was laying out and they even made sense. Not to say I didn't have to read some paragraphs more than once to let it sink in, but sink in it did. If you ever wondered where the universe started, this is the book to tackle. He doesn't exactly answer the question, because there is no one accepted answer, but he certainly lays out multiple alternatives as they are currently proposed, even if not universally accepted. You are left to ponder the question and deduce your own answer. The best kind of science book ... one that forces you to think!

[Keith Adams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book made me realize I'm the center of the Universe. And not just my "own little" one either, but the real thing. The Big Bang started right here.

Don't worry. You are also the center of the Universe, apparently.

I've long been completely fascinated by cosmology, the study of the fabric and origins of the universe, and consume several books on the subject every year. You're often reading, in these books, the same subject matter. Yet each writer brings in a slightly different slant which, all of a sudden, provokes an unusual insight you hadn't considered before, even if that insight is, in retrospect, blindingly obvious.

This time around I'm reading the truly excellent Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe by Brian Clegg.

I have to say that few cosmology books are as well written as this one, and even fewer are as accessible. You really can enjoy and understand this book with virtually no background in science. That he accomplishes this feat of translating cutting edge science from one of the most difficult subjects of scientific study, and does so without making you feel it's dumbed down, or that he's being patronizing, is a tribute to his writing skills.

Back to my original insight (inspired by a brief observation by Clegg) that everything in the universe marks the spot where the Big Bang happened, you have to understand what we mean by the expansion of the universe. My body is currently in a precise location - so far as we understand location - in a house on a hill adjacent to a much more famous hill whose crown is fetchingly adorned with the Hollywood sign.

But where is my location in the universe? The universal coordinates against which you might measure objects in cosmological terms, is the very fabric of space-time. You can define space-time as being a sort of structure entirely enclosed within the universe. And this is the thing: when we say that the universe is expanding, what we really mean is that space itself is expanding. And us along with it. We are, all of us, expanding at an undetectable rate, along with everything else in the universe, slowly moving further apart.

So questions like, where did the Big Bang take place, and where are we in relation to the center of the universe, have no meaning. Wind back the universe to its beginnings, and it is theorized (even the Big Bang is "just a theory") that the entire universe was contained within a single point. It's almost a mathematical concept rather than a physical one, since there's no way we'll ever truly understand how this works. So all matter was in the same location, and space had no dimensions. As the Big Bang takes place, everything that was formerly at that one point, explodes outwards along with the expansion of space itself.

That is why I'm the center of the universe. And also why you should read this book!

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frankly, this book alternately thrilled me and made me want to throw it against the wall. I’m pretty sure my husband is glad I’m finally done reading it because I’ll stop ranting at him about things I read in this book.

A few highlights:

Author Brian Clegg: “Science has no remit to comment on religion, nor should religion attempt to shape science...” (p. 5)
Me: Yes! I’ll spare you the details, but this is one of my favorite things to rant about.

Clegg: “[Science:] can never truly prove something” (p. 82).
Me: /eyeroll/ A favorite argument of science ubergeeks. And technically, they’re right. What we think is true today could easily be called into question by something we discover tomorrow.* But (and this is an important but) who cares? Science has allowed us to put a man on the moon, build cell phones, predict eclipses, send incredibly accurate GPS satellites into orbit, etc. The science may not be completely right, but it’s clearly close enough for a lot of things.

Clegg: “With due respect to [Neil deGrasse:] Tyson and [Donald:] Goldsmith, they are wrong” (p.161).
Clegg: (Referring to physicist Michio Kaku’s belief that time travel is in the foreseeable future) “Kaku has hope on his side, and it would be churlish to deprive him of his dreams” (p.246).
Me: Condescending much? Give him credit, Clegg is brimming with self-confidence, but he’s a scientist; he should know better. He himself just pointed out that scientific theories have to evolve and change. Maybe he should be a little more tactful. After all, Clegg is bound to be wrong about something.

Clegg: The Big Bang theory is “much patched.” This is a bad thing.
Me: And so what if it is? Theories don’t spring forth fully-formed like some Greek goddess. All theories have to be “patched” and altered as new data surfaces. I would especially expect theories about cosmology to be “patched” since they deal with such an enormous subject (just the entire universe), and we knew so little to start with and are finding out so much more as new technology is developed.

In spite of my problems with his opinions, Clegg does provide a good overview of cosmology (the study of the universe: its origins, structure, laws, etc.), and the ideas are fascinating...when I could understand them. You see, the universe, in addition to being vast and ancient, is also really weird. It’s not exactly easy to wrap one’s mind around concepts like infinity and multiple dimensions and things being in more than one place at one time. I have a (dusty, long neglected) physics degree and this stuff blows my mind. Overall, a fascinating subject, but definitely not an easy read.

-------
* A favorite example is Newton’s Laws. Einstein’s relativity came along and showed that they weren’t entirely correct -- Newton’s Laws don’t work as you approach the speed of light. I say, big deal! When was the last time you traveled at the speed of light? For most of us, even scientists, Newton’s Laws work very well, thank you very much.

[Jeffrey Dannaldson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting look at the current state of cosmological theory. One thing I really like about this book is that the author is not afraid to challenge the inflationary Big Bang model. It does seem rather a kluge. String theory and M-theory get scrutinized as possibly unscientific as well, since they may be untestable. They also predict many different kinds of universes, not just the one we live in.

Even far out ideas such as the universe as simulation or hologram get a fair treatment here. I tend to think that either:

a) our observable universe is just part of a larger multiverse, where every possible universe does indeed exist, thus negating the idea that our universe is special just because it allows us to exist.
OR
b) the "beginning" of the universe is just an illusion created by the fact that we are "entropy engines" and thus see time as moving only in one direction: the direction of increasing entropy. It may just be that time is just another dimension like the three spatial dimension and that we are constrained by our metabolism (which uses energy to create order at the expense of increasing the entropy of our surroundings), and thus our consciousness, to only perceive it "moving" in one direction. Thus the universe is simply a four-dimensional object, without a "beginning" or "end", much as a sphere has no beginning or end.

Anyway, this book is very readable for a book tackling such daunting scientific and mathematical ideas. You don't really need to know anything about physics to understand the explanations of the various theories, and yet the ideas aren't "dumbed down". That's the hallmark of good popular science writing and the author has certainly succeeded here.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite the subtitle, I didn’t see a lot about “the pre-history of our universe” in this book. I was looking more for something along the line of a condensed energy state that could no longer tolerate energetic incompatibilities, resulting in the explosive force known as the big bang. If, for example, a neutron star is 90% composed of neutrons, what might say about the big bang itself (and for black holes)? Clegg in fact seems to have his own doubts about whether a big bang pre-history was part of our past versus, say, infinite expansion or cycles that void the need for any big bang starting point. (The author also spends a good amount of time questioning other theories such as the presence of dark matter and dark energy, inflation and string theory.)

Clegg states that entropy is a measure of the lack of order, and that the earth is not a closed system as it is supplied with energy by the sun. Yet he leaves the definition of order and energy pretty much up to the reader’s imagination. What is order? What is energy? Entropy as a concept seems constrained by its definition as “order and organization” (e.g. a perfect glass or egg shell and their brokenness as the reverse). But how does this work in a big bang scenario where high-density mass-energy explodes then dissipates and moves billions of years later into a high entropy situation? How can it be conceived that a big bang scenario is a low entropy situation (ordered, organized) when it is highly condensed form of “unhappy” energetics that results in an explosion? In answering that question, Clegg dispenses with order-organization as the definition and goes with the more generic notion of heat (high concentrations of energy) that extends beyond the constrained notion of heat as work as in the old steam engine days. He suggests that the pre-big bang state is a high-density, mass-energy, low entropy state, and that the reverse, the dissipation of mass-energy in (or as?) spacetime, is (the movement toward) a higher entropy state. This, for me, is an easier way to understand entropy.

Gravitational mass is commonly said to be an external force that accelerates other masses and spacetime itself (changing its shape). But is there not an internal, inertial, force as well that is autonomous movement? Regarding the concepts of inertia and gravity, the former suffers from a stasis connotation, when really, isn’t it Newton’s first law of motion? An object stays at rest (relative to other bodies) or in motion because that is its natural state? But then Newton cast inertial movement aside (the “why” of inertial movement along with other “whys” – versus the “is” or “how - seem to be shunned by physicists) to focus exclusively on the forces that cause acceleration, a change in a body’s natural rest or moving state. Isn’t this the effect of gravity – inertial movement by one body has accelerating (gravitational) effects on another body? Is this, in part, what Einstein was getting at with his equivalence principle: A body both moves itself (inertia is to move, or to maintain stasis or straight-line movement via resistance-repelling) and moves other bodies (gravity, which is the effect of inertial movement). Seen this way, isn’t gravitational “force” a misnomer? Isn’t it really that an inertial force – a property of mass-energy to move itself, autonomously - that creates the so-called “gravitational force”? Of course, as Clegg points out in his book on gravity, gravity accelerates or attracts nothing. Rather, massive bodies shape spacetime that in turn create pathways toward a gravitational center. In other words, spacetime eliminates the need for force.

This in turn prompts a single, broader question: What is the source of cosmic movement? External, accelerating forces only, per Newton? Internal inertial forces (via inertial mass-energy) that have accelerating effects (via gravitational mass)? And what is the role of the big bang that set things in motion (a la a Prime Mover) or the role of light/energy that is expressed outwards?

[Maike Ruppelt · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Vor dem Urknall" gehört zu den wissenschaftlichen Büchern, die ich während meines Studiums mit großer Begeisterung verschlungen habe. Beim erneuten Lesen ist mein Eindruck heute noch immer positiv, allerdings etwas nüchterner als damals.

Natürlich gab es inzwischen viele neue Entdeckungen (beispielsweise sind Gravitationswellen heute keine Theorie mehr, sondern sicher nachweisbar), sodass manche Kapitel fast obsolet wirken, aber das ist gar nicht schlimm. Mich störte hier eher, dass die eigentliche Frage, die im Buch behandelt werden soll, nämlich was denn nun vor dem Urknall gewesen sein könnte (dass es keine konkrete Antwort gibt, sollte ja klar sein), erst in den letzten Kapiteln überhaupt zum Thema wird.

Brian Clegg beschäftigt sich zunächst in 2/3 seines Buches ausschließlich mit der Geschichte der Kosmologie und den bisher zusammengetragenen Fakten über das Universum an sich. Der Schnelldurchlauf ist aufgrund des angenehmen Schreibstils leicht zu lesen und sehr unterhaltsam, wenn man an all die großen Namen und Durchbrüche erinnert wird, die man nun mal kennt, wenn man sich schon mit Kosmologie und Astrophysik beschäftigt hat - vielleicht richtet er sich damit eher an Neueinsteiger, dafür fände ich es aber dann ehrlich gesagt alles wieder etwas zu kurz und wirr zusammengefasst -, daher kam bei mir oft die Frage auf, ob die lange Hinführung zum eigentlichen Problem wirklich nötig ist oder bloß das Buch umfangreicher machen sollte ... Sobald es dann endlich spannend wird, kommt Clegg relativ schnell zum Ende und damit auch zu der Antwort, dass es keine Antwort gibt. Dafür stehen mehr die (sehr interessanten!) Möglichkeiten der Wirklichkeit und das Multiversum im Fokus.

Alles in allem gebe ich deshalb heute nur noch 3 Sterne für ein angenehm verständlich geschriebenes Buch, das für Interessierte im Fachgebiet Kosmologie auf jeden Fall empfehlenswert ist, das vom Titel getragene Versprechen jedoch nicht wirklich einhalten kann.

[Ashley Lambert-Maberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mostly enjoyed it--some minor quibbles (and I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist, or I may have had more): there was an evident error at some point (it was one of those easy to do ones, like leaving out the word "not"), it's about 2/3 of the way through before we get to before the Big Bang, the title's a bit of a misnomer because much of the (later part of the) book supposes there is no Big Bang--but on the plus side I (mostly) followed the science and found it very entertaining as well ... it's pretty much the ideal tone for administering complicated scientific ideas.

(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. I'm fairly good at picking for myself so end up with a lot of 4s). I feel a lot of readers automatically render any book they enjoy 5, but I grade on a curve!

[Richard Jacobson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book overall. The writing is clear and concise. The historical perspective was broader than most books of this type. It brought up several perspectives I was previously unaware or very marginally aware of. It explained some concepts well in lay language while others remained obscure to me. It is somewhat dated now since gravitational waves have been discovered. I do like the contrarian perspective that the truth of the Big Bang rests on some assumptions that might not be valid, although he didn’t explore alternatives as much as I had hoped. I still don’t understand the holographic universe concept, but I’m not sure I should blame the author for that. I’d like to see an updated version.

[John Sperling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Delightfully subversive.
How do we know that the Big Bang happened? What about inflation? How do we know that dark matter and dark energy exist? We don't. We haven't observed them. This isn't to say science doesn't know what it's talking about. On the contrary, the Big Bang is the best theory we've got, but this is no guarantee that it will not be altered or entirely replaced in the future by one or more ideas, e.g. M theory, string theory, colliding branes, and the holographic universe, which also provide compelling explanations for how universes might come about.
This book also contains mind-bending discussions on the existence of black holes, and quantum theory.

[Dalibor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Popis teorií o vzniku vesmíru, velkém třesku, časoprostoru a moderních teoriích - multivesmír, teorie strun, kolidující membrány. Shrnutí poznatků podobné ostatním knihám. Neaktuální s posledními výsledky - objev gravitačních vln a rozložení temné hmoty zneplatňuje mnoho úvah v knize.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a Big Bang encyclopedia. Every bit of science or history that's connected to the Big Bang gets a short, detailed account. The information is accurate, and clearly conveyed, but not particularly engaging.

[Michael Karpusas · Rating 1 out of 5]

This boring book is just about the history of the discovery of the Big Bang theory which I have read many times before. It says nothing about "before the Big Bang". Don't buy it!

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and exhausting

This was an enjoyable, fascinating, but really exhausting read. Those with more of a physics background may absorb more than I did.

[Shay Miles · Rating 3 out of 5]

A revelatory primer for Big Bang skeptics

[Tania · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve read several books by this author. He’s a very enjoyable writer when explaining Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology & Astrophysics.

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Normally books of this type spend a profound amount of time on history of failed ideas sometimes taking up three quarters of the body. This gives such piffle maybe a dozen pages and only to the extent that it is necessary to say who the first person to thought of the notion of non-time or the size of the universe. The heft of the text is going over our best guesses of the origin of the universe and attacking the hegemony of the big bang. The author recognizes the efficacy, predictive power, and accuracy of the big bag theory but also goes over in reasonable detail other possible explanations. He clearly points out the threads of evidence and points out the shortfalls of each in much more clarity than anything I've ready previously. The author clearly indicates which ideas are hypotheses, aids to conceptualization, models or possible emerging theories with a keen eye towards the nature of the scientific method.

The author spends sometime talking about how cosmological ideas develop and includes abandoned ideas that were never disproved but merely fell out of favor.

The book is an amazing overview of the current state of cosmology indicating where scientists and theoreticians are working and spends no effort to put on a "unified front" as many texts on cosmology do. If you're comfortable with cosmology on any level I think you may find this book enjoyable.

[Karen Floyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Update November 2025: I wonder what science has to say about these theories now? I need to find a more up-to-date book.

2013:
Written in 2009, this book attempts to cover what were then the current theories on how our universe began and what makes it work. The huge distances of space and the smallness of the smallest particle are boggling enough to the human mind, let alone trying to grasp the nuances of what may have started everything and why, or if there was any beginning at all. I found this book fascinating, intriguing, and amusing, though often hard to understand, especially when he started talking about math. (One with a hundred zeroes after it? Surely you jest!) So many theories, the Big Bang, the Steady State, bouncing branes (that was a new one), multiverses, the Calabi-Yau manifold, and much more. Clegg reminds the reader that these are only theories. Theories can't be proved, he says, only disproved. Which leaves us where? Still not knowing what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang, or whether there was a Big Bang, but with our minds broadened if considerably confused. For the moment I think I'll stick with 42 as the answer to life, the universe and everything. It makes as much sense as anything else. Bang the rocks together, guys.

[McKinley Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good in the beginning , less so in the middle and great by the end.

Really shows how shoddy and controversial the big bang theory is even though it is often presented as fact. Some Highlights:

The matrix information bit from it theory is interesting. Also the observer effect where quantum particles do not have certain properties until observed (interacted with) is very very reminiscent of how a good computer program does not generate certain values until needed. Quite eery.

Bouncing branes seems likely but comes with the mess of string theory. Which, I adopt Feynman's position on, that it is untestable therefore not science but rather a hunch. At least at the moment.


Finally, the holographic Universe is a very cool idea but definitely over my head.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview of current cosmological theories, but does not really address the question of its title.

[Saman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book shows how science has altered our view of cosmos and its origin over the past two and a half millenia. It covers all the theories there have been and are.
The author has some biases for the String theory (or rather, String theories). I am not a fan of String theory, but the universe does not care what we like. String theory might be right after all! So, I do not see it as a minus point, but rather as a scientific view from a physicist.

[Skylar lemon]

This book was all about if the big bang was true or not. Brian Clegg took science, math, and history and mashed it into this book to answer peoples questions on the word. I was that into this book at first but I started to like it when I was reading things I learned in science class. Such as Hubble´s law. I didn't read this book because i Believe in the Big Bang, because i dont believe in that. But because I love science. That is probably the only reason I liked this book.

[William Lubold · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pop science, (reasonably) easy to understand. It makes sense of the competing theories on the origin of the universe, and makes some unexpected connections. Of course, it raises more questions than it answers, but there you go.

[Brendan Chard · Rating 3 out of 5]

A relatively (pun intended) non-technical look at various theories about the origins of our universe. Some of the theories discussed are difficult to wrap your mind around, but if you have an interest in cosmology it is definitely a good read.

[Daniel DeLappe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Covered subject so someone like me (a math idiot) could understand the book. If you are just getting into astronomy this is a good place to start.

[Amy Wilks · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is deep stuff! It is taking me forever to read it. I am not even halfway through, and the book had to be returned so I'll have to finish it later. Interesting, but not a quick or easy read.

[Martin Grayson · Rating 2 out of 5]

A little repetitive, and a little simplistic, although a decent overview of the current state of cosmology.

[Steven Dunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, but cliche in a lot of ways.

[Michael Moats · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating! Well written and researched. Explores many alternative explanations for what we observe. The best answer, unfortunately, is still we just don't know.

[Jan Stanton]

Interesting book but still leaves the question unanswered. Will the question ever be answered?