A common misconception is that matter is cooled or condensed energy. In reality, matter is compressed energy that is locked into place. That is why there is so much energy released when fission or fusion occurs versus combustion or some of the other processes. There would be no reason for cooled and condensed energy to do anything, it already lost its "energy" in the cooling process.
If however you look at the universe as an endless cycle of energy transferring into matter, with matter decaying back into energy, which then causes the universe to collapse again. Then you can see that matter has to be compressed "hot" energy and cannot be cold. If we as matter are decaying then we must be at a higher energy state versus the surrounding energy. If we were cooled and condensed energy then more energy should be condensing as I type and you read, we would be gaining in mass, which is not the case. Every piece of matter that we know of is in the process of losing mass, all known particles have a lifespan, and can only exist for so long in our measurable existence.
One may take popsicle sticks and make stars or window frames by bending and tucking the ends much like with a cardboard box top. Once you have applied the energy to arrange the sticks or flaps in the overlapped positions they will stay locked in place until enough extra energy is added to break them back apart. Protons and neutrons are the same way since 99% of the space they occupy is EMPTY, hard to be cooled and condensed yet mostly empty.
Therefore, almost every single paper or theory about the "Big Bang" is backwards. The way we look at the universe is backwards. We should look at from the perspective of energy and not matter since we are made up of energy. To insist that we use matter or that the laws of the universe are written from the preferred perspective of matter is asinine.