[dead cat (OP)]

In a zero energy universe, gravity represents -ve energy and all other forms of energy represent +ve energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

The Big bang happened from a very small area of space, in the early days of the theory a singularity where gravity did not exist. Which seems to be against the laws of physics. Nothing gets out of a black hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big bang also started with lots of heat from an explosion / expansion of space time.

What caused the heat? 

It is likely that for a zero energy universe before the heat appeared the universe was cold 0K, 0 gravity, 0 energy state, with x dimensions? no space time? 

In a zero energy universe matter/energy and gravity all happen at the same time from quantum fluctuations, all the matter/energy and gravity in the universe appearing at a single location would form a black hole, according to the laws of physics.

Is it POSSIBLE that in order not to disobey the laws of physics and to explain the missing anti matter in the universe, the original matter formed over a vast volume of expanding space as quarks at absolute 0 from quantum fluctuations, that were likely entangled in some form of quark condensate, not unlike a Bose Einstein condensate, and then at some random time matter antimatter particle quarks came together either forming protons or annihilating causing vast amounts of heat and the CMBR we see today. Condensates I understand can only form and be stable at near absolute zero. No more matter or energy can be created because the universe is too hot at 2.7Kelvin preventing condensates to form. Is there already an extant theory that covers this question, I do not think Lindes inflationary universe addresses where the heat and matter comes from. I could be very wrong, as was Lemaitre if the zero energy universe beginnings are correct.

 

[dead cat (OP)]

Replying to myself is a worrying trend.

The Big singularity according to inflationary theory started by Guth and Linde never happened, the following pop science link implies it did. http://why-sci.com/big-bang/

"Since there have been no discoveries to dispute this theory and this seems to be the most sensible theory for how everything in the universe was created, then it is an incredibly important one to understand in the field of astronomy."

"At the beginning of existence, the universe had a temperature of 1 x 1032 degree Celsius and only covered a region of 1 x 10-33 centimeters. It’s hard to believe that expanded to become the universe spanning billions of light years we know today!"

The above quoted phrases are based on a total collapse of the laws of physics and inventing a situation where gravity does not apply. How did all the matter in the universe get into the singularity, without gravity.

Jeffrey_H posted this link on another thread https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/ It is a good read.
Why is it still promoted, perhaps labelling theories in green, orange, and red. Ie proven, likely, and pure speculation would be informative when reading

Perhaps labelling theories in green, orange, and red. Ie proven, likely, and pure speculation would be informative when reading

The fact of the matter is Big Bang cosmology is based on parts proven, likely, and pure speculation. 

Very few physcicists believe in the Big Bang singularity described in the first link. Would anyone agree or disagree with this statement.

[dead cat (OP)]

Here we go again.

the inflationary period came after the conjectured big banghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)


Answering part of my question in the OP clearly a zero energy universe is not compatible with the Big Bang Singularity.

Since I am a firm believer in the laws of thermodynamics, energy can not be created or destoyed the zero energy universe is more plausible than a conjectured big bang singularity that defies the laws of physics.

By Occams razor the big bang singularity never happened.

[Colin2B]

Very few physcicists believe in the Big Bang singularity described in the first link. Would anyone agree or disagree with this statement.

Most would say they don’t know. Certainly the move is away from the point singularity and subsequent explosion promoted by the pop-science press.
Most back extrapolation points to something that has the characteristics of a singularity, but that doesn’t mean there was the point singularity. Also, if you extrapolate simple data on an ordinary graph you can see when you’ve gone past the origin, not so with the universe, have you extrapolated too far.
Lots of ideas out there at the moment, nothing is clear. Nothing except that the press like the graphic idea of a big explosion, so the name is something that isn’t going away soon.

[dead cat (OP)]

Very few physcicists believe in the Big Bang singularity described in the first link. Would anyone agree or disagree with this statement.

Most would say they don’t know. Certainly the move is away from the point singularity and subsequent explosion promoted by the pop-science press.
Most back extrapolation points to something that has the characteristics of a singularity, but that doesn’t mean there was the point singularity. Also, if you extrapolate simple data on an ordinary graph you can see when you’ve gone past the origin, not so with the universe, have you extrapolated too far.
Lots of ideas out there at the moment, nothing is clear. Nothing except that the press like the graphic idea of a big explosion, so the name is something that isn’t going away soon.

Can you expand on what you mean by singularity, do you mean a region of space, another type of space, space time doesn't exist space, 5th dimension space, wormhole space, black hole space, no space ?

Extrapolating and shrinking space beyond where the laws of physics work, might be extrapolating a bit far. I am sure I read something Linde wrote on the inflationary epoch starting from a region of space, not a singularity, I cant find the reference at the moment, but some one posted a link to prof matt strassler, if you include him in your searches, he posts some really good explanations. Here is the profs take on the big bang expansion of the universe. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/

and the link at the bottom of that post is just as good https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/inflation/

You say there are lots of ideas out there at the moment which are your favorites. Do you have a link?

[guest46746]

Quantizes Dark Matter, quantize regular matter, quantize Dark Energy. quantize Gravity. The result is approx. 4 to 1 ratio based on observation. Create an algorythm to back engineer to early Universe, less matter, more Dark matter.

If Gravity is an inherent multiple of Mass. An increase in Mass in Universe causes a corresponding increase in S/T, Gravity. Approximatinng the increase in Mass from "Big Bang" to present will offer an approxmation of the growth rate of Universe via an expansion algorithm.

An Increase in Mass and Gravity causes an inverse reduction of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. As one grows the other shrinks in a conservation of energy. The increase in Mass within Universe causes a corresponding increase in S/T, Gravity.

Dark Matter/Energy being negative to a positive Universe, wishes to conserve it's energy. Universe draws energy from Dark Matter/Energy as a zero sum energy source. Dark Matter dictates Universe's growth much as Gravity forms Galaxies, as such it lends energy to Universe. This is a conservation of energy product. The bifucation/branching of Universe by Dark Matter/Energy, can be liken to Gravity dictating form to Mass. 
 
The product maybe a circular cycle, as Dark Matter separates and disperses Light Mass, Light Mass promotes expansion of S/T Gravity. AS S/T expands, Light Mass increases, as Light Mass increases, Dark Matter/Energy  acquiesces energy to Universe. The more Dark Matter/Energy acquiesces energy to Universe, the more Universe rapidly expands. The more rapidly Universes expands the more Dark Matter/Energy loses energy. In this way an algorythm can be projected for Universe, Dark Matter interaction. Equilbrium is a possibility, as is a reversal of roles played in the conservation of energy. lol

[dead cat (OP)]

A random unrelated comment to this thread is that using EFE It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Dark matter could just be a result of stretching the maths beyond breaking point, ie according to some recent credible theories by sentient people based around quantum mechanics and entanglement, dark matter does not exist.

The thread is about the compatibility of the zero energy universe and the big bang singularity. The conclusion is they are not compatible theories, one must be wrong and could be a result of stretching the maths too far.