A singularity, made of unimaginably dense material.
The big bang marks the beginning of the expansion of space-time from minute to enormous. It marks the beginning of time t = 0. I don't know of any discussion of energy needed for the 'banging' of the big bang. Since it marks the beginning of time it makes no sense for energy to be needed to start the Universe with a bang, for this energy would thus need to be around 'before' the beginning of time. Also, the big bang is technically not an explosion, but an ('explosive') expansion of great great great great great great magnitude. This however does not resolve whether energy need be supplied for a bang or for an expansion. The answer seems to lie in a technicality of time.
The big bang began the expansion of spacetime with great rapidity. The Universe began with the Big Bang. In other words both space and time began at the big bang. The big bang started the Universe from the point t=0.
It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.
Evidence. See related question.
The spectrum of galaxies, including the distribution of their light, shows evidence of the expansion of the universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. The redshift of galaxy spectra indicates that galaxies are moving away from us, suggesting that the universe is expanding. This cosmic expansion provides crucial support for the Big Bang model of the universe's origin.
Realistically - it is still going on. The "big bang" was a term coined to ridicule an explanation for the birth of the universe. It was not a "bang" more a rapid expansion. As this expansion is still continuing, the "big bang" has not finished.
Yes, the Big Bang was faster than light. During the initial expansion of the universe, the rate of expansion was faster than the speed of light.
According to the Big Bang model, no object must have moved during the Big Bang. The Big Bang model describes a rapid expansion of space, not any kind of motion.
It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.
It is known as The Big Bang.
The expansion of every part of our Universe was as big as our Universe -- which, if not infinitely large, is pretty big.
No, it didn't. At the moment of the 'big bang', which was really an expansion and not a noisy explosion, there was absolutely nothing except the massless energy that brought the big bang about. The earth didn't exist until billions of years after the big bang.
That's the inflationary theory.
Some refer to it as the Great Expansion, because the Universe didn't really "bang", it just began a very rapid expansion.
No, the Big Bang was not an explosion in the traditional sense. It was a rapid expansion of space and time that marked the beginning of the universe as we know it.
No. The Big Bang was the origination of the universe; a black hole is the death of a star. Answer The big bang was an explosive expansion of space-time from a singularity, marking the beginning of time and space. Supernovae are exploding giant stars that form (and explode) millions or billions of years after such things as Big Bangs. The Big Bang was not a true explosion, but an enormous expansion. Supernovae are hugely closer akin to explosions.
They do not, per se. The perpetual expansion of the universe does.