There is good reason our math breaks down when reverse enginering the universes expansion, when we reach a point shortly after the big bang expansion started. Math is customarily used to explain what we already know about something behaving in a consistant manner, This is how math has always been used, although we can use it now to speculate about things we may start out only imaginating. But the problem before us when looking at expanssion from some nondescript point is that the laws of our universe were in the process of being formed, before there were any laws to explain anything. There was nothing yet formed or fully formed for math to explain. String theory is popular because of its promise of possibly resolving this problem, but it is math in need of theories to explain what the math describes rather than math to describe what is already known. Also, in my opinioin the idea of anything being infinite is 'infinitely problematic' because there is no mathematical difference between the number _Zero_ and an imaginary value represented by the words _infinitely small. It's impossible to resolve this with any form of math we choose to use. I'm not saying there will never someday be a way to represent everything we believe happened through math, all the way back to the very beginning, but the idea of any chain of cause and effect that can be traced back to what amounts to a non existance cause is anathema to anyone trained in natural sciences. Just as there being a god or intelligent designer is anathema to anyone who is convinced there is no such being.