How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

It's not really clear what matter is. We don't know what energy is and what an elementary point-particle really is. There is no "picture" behind these concepts, nothing that a human being can imagine and definitely no agreement between physicists about what matter is. An exitation of a field is a way of saying - something that looks and behaves like a particle will appear at x,y,z and time T under certain circumstances(which are hotly disputed and debated all the time). This is not a picture of matter, it is a picture of us being restrained to speaking only of what we can say about nature, not of what or how nature really is. When discussing what energy and matter really are, we are talking more about philosophy than physics. Those who vehemently claim to know what matter and energy are, don't know what they are talking about. This is the cold truth of modern physics, summarized in a few sentences.

Saying matter is energy isn't bringing new insights into the nature of matter, as one doesn't know what energy is, beyond - "energy is the capacity to do work"(there are some properties of matter that are hard to explain as arising from raw "energy"). Substituting one unknown with another is not a good definition of matter. The best way to treat multi-particle systems(matter) so far has been as fields in QFT, though it isn't saying much what matter really is.. And fields are most definitely not made of "chemicals". Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Then, it's not the "Picture" that most people here have in mind. Besides, you do not know the exact relationship between fields and "matter", as it's an interpretational issue, and there a more than 20 interpretations.
If you don't know what reality is, how can you know what matter is??
Knowing how "matter" behaves is not the same as saying "We know what matter is". Same as above - Knowing how elementary particle behaves is not the same as saying "We know what an elementary particle is". Mathematics says NOTHING about what an electron is. There is absolutely no agreement between physicists about the true nature of the electron. It's been proposed that there is an electron and an accompanying wave at the same time, that the particle electron does not exist and there is never any collapse, but just an apporximation(illusion) of it, that there is an electron only when you measure it, etc. ect.
Maths only lets you calculate probability, charge, charge density, spin... it says nothing about the nature of the "entity" being described. Who are these physicists and can you reference a source where they claim to know the nature of matter? I think you aren't being sincere and consciously or not deceive the readers that there is agreement on topics for which there isn't any.My question stays - If you don't know what reality is, how can ever claim to know what the nature of matter is? If there is no "matter" prior to measurement, or prior to decoherence, or prior to a pilot wave probes the "environment", etc., how can you claim to somehow possess such fundamental knowledge?
BTW, you must get used to the inevitable notion that in the abscence of fundamental knowledge of ANYTHING, you can't make such sweeping statements as "I(or some physicists - which?) know what "matter" really is".Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.