Also if there was a big bang than describe in physical terms the state the material existed in.
137603
Fact of the Day: The big bang theory was proposed by a Father Georges-Henri Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. \n\nI'm an engineer and as such I believe in creation through design :)
420485
You might be interested in M-theory of the universe. It suggests that the universe, ie the big bang that we see is the result of two higher dimensional membranes touching each other. Other membranes may actually touch and produce other kinds of universes but with physics that might be unstable or unusual
279768
I recommend reading "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawkings (think that's how you spell it.) He discusses the big bang quite a bit. It seems like an intimidating book, but it is really very easy to read.
122962
Well you are right most of us believes in big bang . The origin of the universe cannot be proven scientifically.The big bang can be believed some how becouse now the stars are dieng and are born .Well this may be how the universe must have been formed
312144
I have indeed considered this. The problem is scientific observation has not agreed with the concept of random quantum mechanics created all the matter in the universe.\n\nThe problem with this idea is how do you explain massive concentrations of matter like Suns. if you want to say random particles colided together and created the massive volume that is a sun then fine. How long would such a thing take? With all the suns in our Galaxy alone how is that possible especially considering you only have about a billion year window before most of your stars start dieing off their is simply too much matter.\n\nWhat is far more likely is the Big Bang. The reason I say this is because of two critical observations. The fact that distant Galaxy's are moving away from us at a constant rate or what is called red shift. If the Universe was formed by random particles why is their a constant drift from a center point? \n\nThe second point is because of what is called cosmic radiation. The theory put out was if at one time the universe was smaller and hotter then their would be cosmic radiation and space would be about 2-4 Kelvin and that's exactly what we found. If what you are saying is true then the temperature of the universe should be at absolute zero.\n\nIf you wish I could recommend some books on the subject.
666283
They propose, some had created the Universe... The agent of the Big Bang, God may be...
432893
1) At the present speed of light it could be bigger than that.\n\n2) Good point!
41898
It could have been the force resulting from a universal collapse just before.\n\nIf you're a religious person, then maybe it was God.
449912
i don't think in terms of the universe being massive compared to the size of galaxies,but minuscule compared to that which is outside the universe, that way there is an endless supply of material on hand.here at the"center of the universe"it's all relative to our thinking everything is so large but since all we can do is theorize about whats out there,why cant we theorize outside the box,way outside the box. where did science get this idea ? i believe that a chaotic set of galaxies brings about an ordered universe that is a single organism of a larger set of chaotic universes,which in turn forms ordered groups of galactic multiverses which is a small component of a megaverse ,and so on
595812
As well as you can picture the force that led to the big bang or the first spark of life on earth.
3682
I like to think at the moment that the 'Big Bang' just blew a physical dimmention on top of our then existing dimentions, and 'we' took physical form...
600593
Allow me to confuse you even more. \n\nTo begin with, the universe is not the result of an explosion. An explosion takes place inside something else, like a building, earth's atmosphere, etc.,  There is absolutely not one single shred of evidence that our universe began inside anything else.\n\nIn the first few instants of the universe there was nothing but spacetime and pure energy--no matter (mass) of any kind, including hydrogen. It wasn't until the universe was about 3 minutes old that the first low-mass atomic nuclei began to form, and another 400,000 years would pass before neutral atoms formed. Finally, after that 400,000 year point, the universe had cooled enough that hydrogen could first appear to fill the already existing spacetime volume of the universe.
243925
You could start with the Wikipedia entry for the Big Bang.
501045
I agree that such an explanation is one possibility.  In fact, my failure to fully comprehend the Big Bang in a purely scientific manner is the only reason why I am an agnostic, and not an athiest.  I feel that I need to allow for the possibility.
476350
the universe WAS a singularity (everything packed into an tiny tiny tiny space) before the big bang. So, i guess, technically, you  can go see the consequence of a singularity by opening your eyes. but see one as a singularity, i have no idea, sorry.
303300
Just one doubt about your  theory,how do you know that only one big bang has taken place as you say that a second one is coming up???And tell me how you would accelerate something to the speed of light as the mass would become infinite.\nAnd according to your theory the total energy in the universe will go on increasing.You are stuck in a viscious circle!!!
287201
In all actuality, your question makes no sense.  If you were to take out all the "space" in matter, there would be no matter.  Matter is basically made out of energy and forces interacting with each other.  If you compressed the universe into the size of a refrigerator, you wouldn't have matter anymore.