It seems that there is no such thing as “singularity potential energy” in the academic concept of theoretical physics, let alone the description of the constant transformation of energy into matter. If we are just science enthusiasts, we don’t need to invent some concepts, which will not do any good for understanding the problem. Let me guess, what we actually want to ask is what was before the singularity? What caused the Big Bang? This is an instinctive question that everyone asks. Can’t we just ask it openly? In my opinion, this is no longer a scientific problem. At least for now, the state before the singularity cannot be modeled by scientific methods. why? Because of the two legs of science, rationality and empirical research. Reason is expressed through rigorous mathematical language. Its essence is formal logic. The foundation of formal logic is concept classification. Classification is the relationship between concepts. Among the many relationships, the most important one is called causality, which is also the biggest goal of science. However, causality depends on the assumption that time passes uniformly. Without this premise, there would be no causation. Without it, formal logic would collapse. For example, we have already reached this boundary when we understand quantum properties, and the existing explanations can only think that the superposition state is an intrinsic property of quantum. What is intrinsic? It means that he is like that, there is no reason, this is the first cause, and there is no predecessor. Another example is that we can’t describe the inside of the black hole’s horizon. We can only say that time points to a singularity, and all physical laws are invalid. What about the empirical aspect? Our empirical ability is far behind and rational ability. In theory, empirical evidence must follow rationality. If rationality cannot be reached, we don’t need to think about empirical evidence. Since science cannot model, we are curious, what should we do? At this time, we will seek natural language, put aside rigorous formal logic, and use analogy to construct a vague hypothesis. For example, the theory of relativity assumes the bending of time and space, which is a hypothesis unearthed from natural language. What is space-time bending? In fact, no one has seen it before, we just take the object bending as an analogy. After digging out this hypothesis, we can apply mathematical models on this basis, so we have the general theory of relativity. So before the singularity, we might as well make some analogies. This is the process of making bold assumptions. Because there is no way to carefully verify it, we will listen to music and we will be over. For example, we can assume that all states of the singularity exist in a higher-dimensional space-time at the same time, and our universe is just one of many parallel universes. The reason why we are curious about this issue here is precisely because this universe has developed in this way, otherwise we would not appear. For example, in another parallel universe, there would be no human beings, and no one would be curious about the singularity. Does this assumption sound relatively easy to understand? Why does the singularity explode? The singularity does not necessarily explode. Explosion, non-explosion, and everything else may actually “have happened”. The singularity explosion in our universe is just because we live in the singularity explosion universe.