I couldn’t open the article on my phone just now and I’m not even remotely qualified to answer, but I will anyway ?. My lay person understanding is that we can only see back as far as the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang and someday even that light will fade as the universe is rapidly expanding.

@Markus actually the fact that the night sky is black is basically direct evidence that the universe is expanding. This guy will explain it better than me. It's called the Olbers' Paradox.

Think of it that we are standing on a balloon. When it fills with air everything drives away from you. Now think the balloon is expanding in 3d. Nothing can be pinpointed as the central point since everything is in motion. We cannot see further than the visible universe since light has not reached us from beyond that limit so it's hard to say where is the center.

The question "where it all started" doesn't really make sense in light of the answer to that kind of question. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space. Everything and everyplace we can (and much of what we still can't see) was part of it.

To us humans on Earth, we define places by their relation to the places/things around them. But if there is nothing around you for as far as you can see in every direction, how would you know if you were sitting still, or moving near the speed of light?

Explosion is also a difficult term to use for this concept, because it pre-loads our brains with images that conflict with what really happened. When you think of an explosion, you think there was something there that exploded - like a bomb. But that wasn't the case. Not only was there nothing there before it occurred, but the idea of "before" is also a term that is fraught with danger to understanding the ideas. If there is no matter and no place for it to be, is there any way for time to be passing? Is there any time to actually go by? Einstein and the cosmologists/physicists that followed him use the term spacetime to describe the Universe around us - because they want to get away from the pre-loading of ideas that would bias their thinking about it, and because their best theories so far indicate that space and time are both part of the same thing.

And even more mind-boggling is that we appear to be able to see further back into time/distance than the best estimates for the age of the Universe. I'm still in the early throes of trying to wrap my brain around the concept that the space between the objects we see in "space" is also expanding, which means that (put in very simplistic terms) we can see objects 1,000,000 light years away in only 999,999 years of that light traveling to us, but the speed of light has not changed during that time.

@Lukian Excellent video explaining Olber's paradox , but he left out one interesting bit of information: the answer was not thought up by an astronomer as you might think, but a lay person in America. This person was a writer and poet who happened to also have an interest in astronomy. Edger Allen Poe. he realized that the light was getting tired as it traveled the great distances involved in arriving at the Earth. The red shift as was explained.

@starwatcher-al Olbert formulated the paradox. The answer came later. Nice connection to E A Poe. Of course, amkes sense, he thought light would be tired like having tuberculosis...

@Lukian
Thanks! I needed that. ?

@Markus thanks for getting that reference ( I thought it would not make sense in certain circumstances)

great comment!