I found the programme interesting enough but am still confused. If the Big Bang was not the instant of creation when everything
started and there was a preceding sequence of universes, then it seems to me that we'd be back to the "It's turtles all the way down." scenario?
The 'two different types of nothing' seemed to make sense. The 'nothing' in the vacuum chamber was merely the absence of matter, whereas the theoretical 'nothing' before the Big Bang would have been absolute; no matter, no space and no time. The 'nothing' in the chamber occupies space, and time passes within it - I think....
I may well be missing something because, like most people, I have no understanding of the complex maths involved, yet what was presented seemed to me like an attempt to combine Steady State theory with Big Bang theory ! That is, the Big Bang is actually the latest 'bounce' in a sequence that presumably has been going on, and will continue to go on, forever. Still no definitive answer.
Perhaps it doesn't really matter. For me (and anyone reading this) the joy is in directly observing the wonders of the night sky. Whether or not the universe ever had a beginning or not isn't really going to change anything here on Earth, including the present sweeping cut-backs. Speaking of which, perhaps it was about time cosmology came up with a new controversy to justify more hard-to-get funding.....
p.s. Any replies and opinions welcome but please avoid using maths.