Originally Posted by GOURDHEAD

I was trying to put into my own words what I thought was main stream thinking on the initiation of the big bang, and it looks like you think I failed to capture the main stream concept. I am not astonished at this since I struggle to grasp what those who know are thinking. I agree that a quantum fluctuation occurring in a domain where there is neither space nor time seems a lot like "it was void and without form and....fiat lux.

If what the universe has become was initiated in the state of photonic energy over a very broad band of the electromagnetic spectrum (or a single photon of sufficient energy that it could decay into all that now is in the physical [more than observable] universe) at a temperature commensurate with that energy density, the earlier instances of decay should have generated particles and their anti-matter counterparts with masses on the order of supergroups of galaxies. After very short intervals of time (tens of planck times ??), these should have selfmodulated themselves into the lower energy levels via repeatedly cascading into "gamma" wave to particle pair formation back to gammas..... cycles (perhaps leaving a few cosmic superstrings in "the dust") thus lowering the temperature as the geometry of the universe grew with charge parity being preserved at every stage of the cascades. Note that the phase relationships of the various photon formation levels and their cross-modulation products are being avoided since I suspect a complexity far beyond my coping level. This process continues until we arrive at the current particle zoo in which, if CP preservation is an inviolate axiom of physics, I insist that there should be an equal number of matter and anti-matter particles for which there is no observational evidence. This indicates very faulty thinking on my part---so where have I gone wrong?