Last night’s conundrum about infinity attracted an astonishing level of highly erudite responses. So here’s another one.

Some of you made passing reference to Big Bang while debating the ‘is infinity a constant?’ bollocks last night. As this is something of a celestial hobby horse of mine, see what you make of this.

When I was doing Physics O-level just under half a century ago, How It All Started was a hot ticket – and the newest contender on the block was Big Bang.

My physics teacher Les Lumley told all of us in 3A that Time only began after Big Bang. Before BB, he asserted, there was nothing. This struck me as light on logic.

Here’s why: a bang cannot occur without a catalyst reaction between two chemicals. But by definition, a catalyst needs TIME to allow for the reaction that produces a bangful explosion….and thus creates TIME.

Les Lumley had no answer to that one back in 1960.

Do any of you know one in 2010?