By Dr. Wulf von Bonin

From: http://www.a-von-bonin.de/kosmos/Kosmosen.html

According to a world picture that is characterized by the physical point of view, our cosm is built by energy. This energy is located in fields, radiation, in immaterial particels, material particels and additional energetic phaenomena.

Before the "Big Bang", the cosm rests as a fluctuating, point-like, energetic collection in a state of an "animated vacuum". Only at its extremely high temperatures the unification of all parts of cosm can be assumed to be possible.

In physics‘ current "standard model" this beginning contained the entire energy of our cosm in a form of highest symmetry. Afterwards it has started to expand in an inflationary way. As the temperature falls, the beginning state develops into the so-called "Higgs field". Further cooling leads to the development of the different species of particels with their respective masses and characteristics.

Quarks seem to be the "ultimate" building units of material, they have masses and seem to have structure as well. Further suggestions, e.g. the "Eich-theories" see quasi linear or twisted Strings and membranes as the ultimate unities of a multi-dimensional cosm.

Quants‘ mechanics and mathematics have rather accurately been able to describe and theoretically understand the so-called elementary "zoo of particels" with its interdependences.

The perception - mathematically disclosed and up to now physically accepted - that the beginning of our cosm is reduced to a spot of maximal energy, stands for the theory that towards the beginning of the standard model space and time tend to zero.

The perception that according to the standard model the entire energy of the cosm is concentrated in this starting point, is based on the classical axiom of the preservation of energy !

Its theoretical consequences finally lead to the contradiction that a spacial and timely minimum should contain a maximum of energy. With this contradictory symmetric situation the complete symmetric of a final unification, that is scientifically assumed, could not possibly reached !

Apparently, these physics suffer from a mistake in interpretation ! This mistake is conveyed in the perception that the "starting point" of cosm already contained all its cosmic energy; building on the same mistake, it is alleged that only this energy in the way of "diluting = cooling" performed as the driving power of the Big Bang and of cosmic differenciation and expansion.

Although a point -shaped state of maximal energy theoretically possesses meta-stable gravity (which in itself makes it rather improbable), it cannot be changed by quants‘ processes if it is - like here - without dimension, because these quants‘ processes are themselves dimensionally formulated. The mathematical state that the theory assumed up to this date, would exist more convincingly as a minimum of energy. This minimum would far more comply with the otherwise assumed minimum of space and time!

The seeming logic of today’s physics that have been mathematicized and experimentally tested, seems to contradict with itself in these two fundamental questions. This status has to be called unsatisfactory.

The theory apparently finds its limits when it comes to the cosmic beginning. As it is very improbable that these limits arise because nature‘s laws lose their validity at this point, it is more likely that today’s formulation lacks a term that does not only allow space and time but also energy to tend to zero at the "starting point".

Theoretical physics seem to observe the "Higgs field" as the source of anything scientifically depictable, i.e. the source of a dimensionally depictable cosm:

1. The "Higgs field" probably exists.

2. It probably gives differentiability to events for the first time.

3. Probably it mediates the dynamic development of particels and masses.

However, it is not plausibly explicable why the "Higgs field" all at once has to be extremely rich in energy, or why it dynamically expands thus creating space and time.

The hypothesis of the "animated vacuum", its negative pressure and the "anti-gravity" do not seem - although mathematically possible - "realistically" plausible, because they require a cell of maximal concentration of energy. Also the postulation that there allegedly dimensional events should occur within a spot that is quasi without dimension, raises doubts as to the existence of these - according to the theory - highly dimensional events.

On the other hand the "Higgs field" hypothesis permits the quant-theoretical calculation of different, consecutive, experimentally accessible reactions of the physics of particels. For the masses of "Higgsbosones", the theory suggests e.g. a figure of 640 GeV. This hypothetical perception of a field with the role attributed to it, consequently shows a calculable reality.

If the "Higgs field" is rich in energy, enables expansion, materializes itself in particels of heavy masses, and is able to mediate masses for other particels, is has to be already "dimensional". It already possesses the characteristics of cosmic dimensions. It has to develop historically from a universal and non-dimensional basic status and this status has to differ significantly from the "Higgs field".

Whatever could be the "nothing", starts "before". That means, the "Nothing" should be located "before" the energetic implications of the "Higgs Field", i.e. "before" the expansion into space", "before" the beginning of time, and "before" the development of distinct masses, i.e. "before" dimensionality. On the other hand, one should be able to describe it plausibly using mathematical and physical logics.

Primarily, the first trigger mechanism is in question that incites the "process of creation" from the status of the highly symmetrical universal "Nothing".

Basically that is the question to the nature of the "Nothing" ans its possibilities to initiate a fraction of symmetry in the direction of "Something" ! At this point, one has to ask first, how a scientific understanding of the "Nothing" could look like.

Assuming that quants‘ theories were one of the "right" paths of understanding for our experimentally measurable cosm, the inquiry of the "Nothing", i.e. the inquiry if the above mentioned universal, highly symmetrical basic status shows any quant-mechanical characteristics, must lead the way to a solution.

- Is it plausible that the former "Nothing" all of a sudden developes into an energetic maximum ? - Can it be plaubily explained that - different from space and time - all energy of today’s cosm was concentrated in a point-like maximum ?

- What is it that forces the postulated, highly symmetrical, universal basic state of maximal energy to perform the initial fraction of symmetry, from which later on our cosm develops ?

- If this energetic maximum has already developed once, why does it then - in the way of dilution - have to expand into a time and a space that would first have to be created in this process ?

- Is it not true that mass is only created by a dynamic linkage of energy with space and time according to the axiom m=e c-2, meaning not before space and time sufficiently exist ?

The mathematical, logical structure of classical physics and particularly quants‘ mechanics largely allow empirically verifiable statements on physical processes.

Is this structure therefore "right" ? Or - what of it is "right" and what is not ?

Is it - eventually - only one of several possible paths of understanding, one that is historically established in the sciences as a logical and consistent path of understanding ? Do other - equally logical and consistent - paths exist that equally allow the understanding of empirically verifiable events ?

For example, there is equally a discussion in the framework of mathematical formalism of the established physical theory as to whether the entire microcosmic events of quants‘ theory could be explained clearer and with less contradiction from an electro-dynamical viewpoint. Thus, it is suggested to explain materia as a form of solid electro-magnetic waves (see Schrödinger; Bohm; Sallhofer).

Is the question already answered whether there might be several paths of scientific understanding of our world that are logically consistent and that are even - at least in parts - compatible with one another ?