Q: Is it possible that the infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang, didn't in fact contain the vastness of the matter within our universe but rather, was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe" from the field of inert material which already existed as 'space'?
Matter + Energy + Space = Time.
No.
There is some merit in the idea that the big bang was not about space or matter but instead about a precosmic change in what we now describe as the "quantum fields" of the fundamental forces and particles, however, the way your question is phrased (and please forgive me for this condescension) makes it painfully obvious that you don't have an academic background or a significant amount of time invested in learning the maths and physics (especially the maths) behind what scientists call the big bang. I wouldn't say it's entirely your fault, most of the pop media available online and in books regarding the big bang is dumbed down by orders of magnitude, and these topics are those which when dumbed down to that extent, are impossible to explain with normal words and concepts of the English language.
I always tell people who try to dip their toes in deep mathematical concepts such as QM, QFT, QED, etc that they HAVE to understand the math first. Because, if you can't understand the math, you're going to misinterpret the poor selection of words and abstractions that we have chosen to use to describe these things by way of language.
It's very hard to understand what a mathematician means when they use words like "field" and "infinite density" etc, and it is VERY easy to misconstrue them based on the mundane, every-day meanings and concepts of those words.
But here's a few things:
- There was no such thing as "infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang"
- When you say "was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe"" you're not describing anything new or novel compared to the notion of it being "matter that then expanded" that you're trying to contend. They are both equivalent and both equally misguided.
- "field of inert material which already existed" - again, no such thing exists, it's just a misconception that arises from a lack of understanding of the actual math.
Rather, I think it is just the liminal event in an infinite mathematical system. As to whether that series is an infinite normal is a mystery, but I'm not so sure it IS an infinite normal we exist in explicitly.
Any actual universal seed would need to start not with "stuff" but "relationship definitions", wherein new forms of relationship within the series are revealed, and some mechanism is provided to operate within the provided definitional framework.
I wonder sometimes if all this stuff is just "the only way all math may together be expressed"
Heat doesn't come until way later, not until 3-d particle geometry gets defined.
I'm sorry, but complete garbage that would get you laughed out of any university. Again, you're flirting with some intelligent thoughts when you said "relationship definitions" as essentially that's part of what "fields" are, and "the only way all math may together be expressed" is honestly a viewpoint I often sympathise with when trying to make sense of the universe from a philosophical standpoint.
But when you say shit like "not until 3-d particle geometry gets defined." that just instakills your credibility and your statement becomes gibberish.
I really, honestly, truly do not want to gatekeep science, that's not what I'm trying to do, but you HAVE to understand the maths, the real maths to even begin to try and comprehend novel and abstract ideas that we haven't even got words to properly describe. Without that, it's meaningless woo woo.
In the spirit of helping, here's a video from a Stanford lecture, and while not related to the topic of this discussion (if that were even possible to properly define) and this video alone won't even come close, and I mean not even remotely close to understanding major theories like QM and the math behind the big bang, it's an easy stepping stone to get started on a journey to understand the math. There are many videos like this from Stanford and MIT that you can watch, and once your math is good, you can start reading papers/journals and grad-level text books and use them to find the holes in your understanding of the math and do your own research. Once you've got a good grip on the grad-level math, you can then start to actually do some academic research on QM and the big bang. Make sure to understand all the math along the way.
And on the flipside, if I may be brutally direct, if you watch the video, do some self-learning and still can't understand the math or make sense of the equations, then never talk about QM or "the origin of the universe" again because you're not capable of understanding it.
Video 1 (of hopefully many in your own research):
