Anything is possible...but as far as the "big bang" theory is concerned, this "bang" was the VERY BEGINNING of the ENTIRE universe....not just for our little corner of the Milky Way galaxy. Remember though that the "big bang" theory is just that...a theory....a 'guess' as to how the universe started. As a matter of fact, it does a poor job of explaining THAT. If there was nothing before the "big bang", what ignited it? There was nothing to "bang" for lack of a better word. Science has seemed to settle on this explaination though, and for some reason has stopped pursuing other possibilities, as well as giving clarification as to what was BEFORE this "bang". I wouldn't place any more credibility in the "big bang" theory than you probably place on any of the "creation" theories. Neither make much sense. -

I do not believe that an infinite universe is compatible with a "big bang" hypothesis of origin. If the universe expanded from an initial event, it must be finite because there has not been enough time to expand to infinity - not even at the speed of light... If matter, energy, space and time began with a "big bang" event, it is conceivable that there have been multiple initiating events at different "places" in time-space. I have never heard speculation on what the implications would be, but I don't believe we have evidence pointing in that direction. If the intent of your question relates to the possibility of other time-space regions unrelated to ours which expanded out of whatever precipitated our hypothetical big bang (other parallel universes) I do not believe we have any technology that could test for results to inform an opinion. I agree with the other poster who implies that the "big bang" is no more a testable hypothesis than a creation hypothesis. The best science can do is cite evidence consistent with a hypothesis relating to an event that might have taken place in the past. It can never be proved.

Um, to speak of a local Big Bang and non-local Big Bangs is, pardon the bluntness, nonsense. The Big Bang Model projects our currently expanding universe backward in time, and, since it is getting bigger now, it was smaller in the past. The ultimate distance in the past is some 13.7 billion years ago, where the model predicts an infinitely small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense universe. Please note that we are talking about the whole universe - all of space and time. By definition, time and space did not exist before the Big Bang, at least not for anyone inside our universe. And, also by definition, our universe contains all we could have, do, and will see - anything outside just doesn't matter. So other universes may exist, but unless they interact with ours, they may as well not. A question that you may be interested in is the relationship of the visible universe to the universe that was created in the Big Bang. Our visible universe is 27 billion or so light years across, but the actual universe may be much larger still. But this is almost as nonsensical, since we'll never see it. Indeed, we will be able to see less and less of the currently visible universe as time progresses, and expansion continues. Check a recent (summer of '04) Scientific American article about the Big Bang and string theory. This may be of interest to you - string theory puts an absolute limit on smallness for anything, even the whole universe near the time of its beginning. This implies that the universe may "bounce" from a "Big Crunch" to a new Big Bang, if the universe is closed gravitationally.

As the other answerers have said, the Big Bang theory states that "the" Big Bang is what created the very universe we exist in. However, if you're willing to ignore conventional wisdom, then who is to say that the universe, i.e all of empty space, isn't spatially infinite in all directions? If you're willing to accept this as a posibility (which is a big "if" to many cosmologists), then you might hypothesize that that "our" Big Bang just happened to occur in our "local" region of the universe (a sphere of "debris" approximately 13 to 16 billion light-years in diameter, depending on who you ask), and that the same phenomenon occurrs elsewhere (trillions, quadrillions, etc. of light years apart from each other) that we'd never know about... Now, before someone blasts me and give me an "incorrect" rating, remember this: every theory (like the Big Bang theory) is just that -- a theory. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. But a theory does gain credibility and acceptance after it is proposed as future observations continue to confirm the theory. And if a physicist or cosmologist with the proper credentials were to propose the above as a theory that survived peer review and subsequent observation, then who knows? Comment to Thom64 added on Monday 25-Oct-2004: By observing the rate of expansion of the universe, scientists conjecture that the universe may, indeed, be "spatially infinite" (see comment by Glen Blaylock at http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/7788), so my answer isn't so "meaningless" after all :-) But thanks for the good vote even though you disagreed with me :-) Comment to im god worship me added on Thursday 9-Mar-2006: If another piece of debris from another big bang hit the Earth, it would be no different than if a meteor or asteroid hit the Earth. The damage it would cause would depend on the mass of the object. But then, you're God, so you should know that ;-)

Keep in mind that the universe doesn't expand into empty space. Space expands, carrying and spreading out the matter in the universe within it. There isn't anything outside of the universe (not even empty space), because by definition everything that exists is inside the universe. It is kind of like asking if there can be anything south of the south pole. By definition, nothing can be south of the south pole because all directions are north from there.

Yes this is possible in a way. The Big Bang created everything in existence so the only way there can be another "Bang"occuring now is if you count the currently expanding universe we're in now or another Big Bang in a different dimension as our own Big Bang would not have another happening in itself that would be weird.

My conception of the Big Bang is that the universe is infinite inwards as much as outwards - the universe may not be expanding, but we may be shrinking, giving a static space the impression of expansion from our relative point of view. And it is shrinking at the speed of light - A true Zeno's paradox - as we shrink, the speed of light slows absolutely, but remains the same speed relatively. Thus, what we call a billion years relatively may be 10e-34 seconds long absolutely. Everything is relative.

I think perhaps that it may be possible for there to be more than one Big Bang in existence. Everything that we see, has to be within something to be defined? To better explain anyways. Perhaps since we cannot see beyond our own universe leaves room for creations of others within a space with no time. Maybe to travel through a black hole could get you there? But you'd be dead! If we're the only planet in our galaxy with life, then why? If we're the only galaxy with life in our universe, then why? If we're the only universe in and amongst some existence which held and created a big bang that by our definition was no bigger than a grain of sand, then why? This tiny spec of energy (the big bang, before it went bang) would be no bigger in a "space with no time" if it did go off and expanded over 13 billion light years. wouldn't it? Maybe only the energy within this big bang can see such a huge expanding universe? So, perhaps if you were this creator, you could hold billions of universes within your hand? But what is space with no time? Kind of sounds like a Musical Water-Globe to me. everything we see is relative. is the universe within an unrelative state?

Current cosmology does not believe the universe is infinite; it is finite but unbounded (you cannot fall of the edge of the universe). But some hypothetical cosmologies suggest that our Universe and our Big Bang are but one of many such. But how you would get the evidence to prove or disprove this, they have not yet said.

Aha! Yup. Well asked.

I read a very interesting and hysterically funny book this summer... A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.... I highly recommend it and his chapter on the creation of the universe is extremely fascinating.