Actually the hypothesis being proposed in the article is not how the universe began but rather is proposing the hypothesis that universe has always existed..
The current scientific model of the Universe is based of the Hypothesis of the Primordial Atom, later dubbed the Big Bang by its critics, which basically holds that the universe was formed by a single primordial atom containing all the space, matter, energy and time that condensed to an infinitesimal point that thus began to rapidly expand [exploded] outward to form the expanse of space containing the matter and energy of our known and observed universe. Thus, the universe can only be construed as having always existed since the energy and matter which formed it had always existed according to the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics holds that the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. In such, it is said that energy nor matter can neither be created nor destroyed, they can only change forms. So if the first law of thermodynamics which holds energy nor matter can be created, then all energy and mater must have always existed, since they can not be created. In that the mortal nature is that which has a beginning and an end, as described in Ecclesiastics 3:1-2, To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; thus that which either by nature or form cannot be created nor destroyed is defined by the principle of 'eternal',
So I would suppose that the response to the question of how the universe began 14.5 billion years ago if it has always existed will be that the beginning only refers to the form, not the nature of matter itself, of the universe. [TM]