The big bang DOES NOT describe the beginings of anything – it simply traces the universe back to when it was the Planck length. While this is incredibly small it is still an entire universe away from being nothing.

I was always told by my science teacher that to have a bang you have to have something for it to bang in.

Your science teacher was wrong. The big bang describes an expansion OF space and time, not IN.

I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".

Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.

Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot (at least locally).

The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.

I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".

Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.

Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot (at least locally).

The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>

I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".

Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.

Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.

The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>

I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".

Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of these additional dimensions.

Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.

The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>

I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather is it "we can't reliably speculate".

Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of these additional dimensions.

Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.

The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.