Who created the material for the first "big bang?"?
441083
The short answer is: we don't know!\n\nWe may never know but this might help you a little.\n\nBefore the big bang there was nothing, absolutley nothing.\nThere wasn't even any space (no dimensions). Even if you had one atom of matter you couldn't put it there because there was no space for it. Do you follow me?\n\nThe big bang not only created all the matter and energy we see in the universe today but also the space/time for it to go in.\n\nRemember we live in 4 dimensions, 3 spacail dimensions and 1 time dimension (time direction)\n\nBefore the big bang there was no space, more importantly there was no time.\n\nSome say that with absolutley no time for something to happen in. Something was bound to happen. The Big Bang\n\nRemember, its just theory that appears to fit the observed evidence.
466312
In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.
381701
The theory of "big bang" is a consequence of general relativity and Reimannian space where the space and time are related and ependent on each other. In order to have a black hole, you need a certain amount of mass per space volume.  The main word here is "per", the ratio!  In big bang you have a lot of mass but you also have a lot of space. The entire universe was also shrunk to that spot.  So the ratio was not as large as it seems first.  The is the reason why universe did not become one giant black hole.\n\nAs to your question regarding the relationship between God and the theory of big bang, one does not disprove the other.  Whether there was a big bang or not has no baring as to Who created it.
225886
The other possibility [besides the Big Bang] was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time. It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this 'big bang' idea" during a 1949 BBC radio program, The Nature of Things, the text of which was published in 1950.
524861
Yes, before the big bang.  Actually, that's the EARLIEST we could even begin to say that, since M-branes may have been exerting gravitational effects on each other (if they exist).
795885
The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory in cosmology, initially suggested by Georges Lemaitre. It is essentially the most widely accepted theory about the universe's origin. \n\nThe idea is that the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago (current estimate ~13.5 billion) from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Before that point all matter was concentrated at an infinitessimal point, known as a singularity. \n\nThe idea was most strongly propounded after the astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) found in 1929 that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance, suggesting at some point they were all at a single point. The theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). and received widespread acceptance when this radiation was actually discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s.
1118477
String theory.  Two parallel universives touched briefly - creating the big bang.
844018
Question:  If matter cannot be created or destroyed,  \nwhere did the first(present)matter come from?\n------------------------------------------------\nThough, it is still a big question, if the "Big Bang" was\nreasonably symmetric the universe should have started out\nas pure energy, or as equal parts antimatter and matter\n(matter can be destroyed and turned into pure energy by\ncombining it with antimatter, and energy in some other\nform can be converted into equal parts of matter and antimatter).\nThe big question is, why do we normally only see matter around\nus, and not equal parts of both matter and antimatter? (Of\ncourse it would be pretty hazardous living around stuff that\ncould annihilate you!).  There are a bunch of theories, but as\nfar as I know, nobody really knows yet.
310924
Emerging scientific basis\nSee also: Timeline of cosmology and Timeline of the Big Bang \nThe theoretical scientific exploration of the ultimate fate of the universe became possible with Albert Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity. General relativity can be employed to describe the universe on the largest possible scale. There are many possible solutions to the equations of general relativity, and each solution implies a possible ultimate fate of the universe. Alexander Friedmann proposed one such solution in 1921. This solution implies that the universe has been expanding from an initial singularity; this is, essentially, the Big Bang.\n\nAn important parameter in fate of the universe theory is the density parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value of that density. This creates three possible ultimate fates of the universe, depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively, the Flat, Open and Closed universes. These three adjectives refer to the overall geometry of the universe, and not to the local curving of spacetime caused by smaller clumps of mass (for example, galaxies and stars).\n\nObservational evidence was not long in coming. In 1929, Edwin Hubble published his conclusion, based on his observations of Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies, that the universe was expanding. From then on, the beginning of the universe and its possible end have been the subjects of serious scientific investigation. In 1933, Georges-Henri Lemaître set out a theory that has since come to be called the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. In 1948, Fred Hoyle set out his opposing theory of a static universe, called the Steady state theory. These two theories were active contenders until the 1965 discovery, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of the cosmic microwave background radiation, a fact that is a straightforward prediction of the Big Bang theory, and one that the Steady State theory cannot account for. The Big Bang theory immediately became the most widely held view of the origin of the universe.\n\nWhen Einstein formulated general relativity, he and his contemporaries believed in a static universe. When Einstein found that his equations could easily be solved in such a way as to allow the universe to be expanding now, and to contract in the far future, he added to those equations what he called a cosmological constant whose role was to offset the effect of gravity on the universe as a whole in such a way that the universe would remain static. After Hubble announced his conclusion that the universe was expanding, Einstein wrote that his cosmological constant was his "greatest blunder."\n\nStarting in 1998, observations of supernovae in distant galaxies have been interpreted as consistent with a universe whose rate of expansion is accelerating. Subsequent cosmological theorizing has been designed so as to allow for this possible acceleration, nearly always by invoking dark energy and dark matter. Hence recent theorizing about the ultimate fate of the universe allows for a nonzero cosmological constant.\n\n[edit]\nRole of the shape of the universe\nSee also: Shape of the universe \nThe ultimate fate of the universe depends on its overall shape, and on how much dark energy it contains.\n\n \nThe overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether Ω is less than, equal to, or greater than 1.[edit]\nClosed universe\nIf Ω>1, then the geometry of space is closed like the surface of a sphere. The sum of the angles of a triangle exceeds 180 degrees and there are no parallel lines; all lines eventually meet. The geometry of the universe is, at least on a very large scale, elliptic.\n\nIn a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a poi
207504
No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that the Big Bang happened. However, there's a considerable body of SCIENTIFIC evidence that it did, mainly something called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) Many years ago, when the Big Bang theory was being developed, someone figured out just what the temperature could be at the instant the Big Bang event happened (about 1.8^13 degrees Fahrenheit -- that's 1.8 followed by 13 zeros) Then they figured out what that original temperature would be today, billions of years later. In the early 1960's that temperature was actually detected and precisely measured. It almost exactly matched the proposed temperature -- 2.728 degrees above absolute zero -- and has been found to fill all of the observed universe.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
205236
No one anywhere has the answer to your question, or even if there was any "thing" before the Big Bang. The religious crackpot fundamnetalists certainly don't have the answer! By definition, the universe is everything there ever was, is now, or ever will be. At the instant of the Big Bang, all space-time and energy that will ever exist was created.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
1162887
Silicon was not formed directly after the big bang.  After the big bang, pretty much the only material in the universe was Hydrogen.  This Hydrogen coalesced into stars and began to fuse into heavier and heavier elements.  Eventually, heavy enough nuclei were fused together to form Silicon.\nThe vast majority of all observable matter in the universe is still in the form of Hydrogen, the heavier the nuclei, the harder it is the produce with in a star and the rarer it is in the universe.
382215
The Earth is assumed to be about 4.6 billion years old, and unlike what everyone else said, it's not based solely on anything contained on Earth, including carbon dating. The oldest solid material found on Earth is about 4.1 billion years.\n\nThe guess -- and that's all it is, a guess -- is based on the rate of radiological decay of material on Earth and in meteorites found on Earth and around the solar system.\n\nIf you assume that the entire universe is formed from a common pool of matter (the essence of the Big Bang theory is that all material in the universe came from a single, supercondensed source that exploded); if you assume that therefore, all the matter in the universe has been equally distributed in all directions; if you assume that the rates of decay in all radiological material in the universe are consistent regardless of time, their position in the universe, etc.; then you can derive, by comparing the same kind of radiological material from celestial bodies that were not formed in our solar system, bodies that were part of our solar system when it formed, and that material now on Earth, the age that the Earth must be at the time it began to take solid form.\n\nThe paticular materials used to get that age is Lead-206 / Lead-207, which are the products of decay in Uranium-238.\n\nThis is further supported by temperature measurements of the universe and the evidence of background radiation from the timing of the Big Bang, which is assumed to have occurred about 15 billion years ago; given the rate of expansion of the universe visible to us, and the rate of change in both the speed of that expansion, the temperature of the universe and the density of space, we can verify the assumptions of the Earth's age to be within the estimation of a "young Earth" of 4.6 billion years old.\n\nAlso, to the person who said "The Bible": If you derive the history of the Earth from the Bible, as countless theological scholars have done through extensive research, it's about 6,000 years old; no scholarly Biblical research places the age of Earth at more than 10,000 years old.\n\nIf you want to believe that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that's fine. But you should at least agree with your evidence before citing it.
863011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
529428
We do not know what came before the Big Bang.  There is no evidence/data yet to give us any direction.  There are many who think that that the Universe is eternal.\n\nThe fact that you ask "Who", implies that you think an entity of some kind created everything.  There is no evidence for that either.  In fact, insistence that there was a divine creator begs the question, "Who created the creator?"\n\nIf you answer that the creator always existed, then next question is, "Why couldn't the universe have existed forever?"\n\nOccam's Razor... which is the simpler theory?  Eternal universe or an eternal creator who created the universe?\n\n--------\n\nTo the Bat_Freak:  Wasn't it the Anti-Monitor and the Spectre?
604533
If you believe the theory of creation, found in all major religions, you don't have a problem answering your own question.  If you subscribe to the 'Big Bang' theory (or a derivitive thereof), I would have to ask 'Who lit the fuse?'
72086
Very intersting question which I or no-one else can answer with 100% certainty. I'm no expert in physics but i figure that to create the source of the 'big bang' would  require an infinite amount of matter to be squeezed into a small ball by an even more infinite amount of pressure - which would have to be equal on all sides... so where did all this matter & pressure come from???