>>1239834First, it wasn't matter. Matter didn't exist for quite some time after the big bang started.
Second, it didn't go boom. It was an inflation not an explosion.
Third, how are we supposed to know what's understandable to you? You've given one sentence which is wrong on at least three counts (no matter, no compression, no boom). But how are we know how wrong you are in your other misconceptions, what you undertand correctly, and what level you actually want it to be explained. You might as well say, cook me good food that isn't too spicy for me. What's good food? Some people think caviar is good food, I think it's disgusting. How much spice can you handle? Some chilli pepper farmers can apparently eat handfuls of whole ghost chillis raw, but most people can't even handle a small fraction of one without pain.
You're asking us to explain an aspect of physics on which there is no consensus and no good understanding. The reason there is no consensus is because there is no good understanding. There's consensus on some of, but those are the later parts and I don't think those are the parts about which you are asking because they're conceptually simple. The nteresting parts are there was something, but we don't know what it was. We don't know where it was since the concept of space is something that only exists after the universe has inflated. We know it happened, we know when it happened, but we don't know what happened in the early stages.
We don't know why the universe inflated, we don't know what happened before the universe inflated, and asking what happened before time started is a probably a wrong question.
cont.
