Photon And Mass, energy transfer

insight,
>Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process,...

We would know this as the BB.

>Imagine that all mass is traped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field...


Didn't gravity exist before Separation of the Strong Force?

Or are you saying that matter decay came before gravity? If this is the case then what replaces BB?

This post has been edited by paul h on Dec 27 2007, 09:52 PM

No I am Not disagreeing with the big bang. I am saying that in what today is considered 10 to the -37Th second after the big bang that time itself didn't start. There was a transition ( hyper inflation ) immediately at the big bang and I am stating a possible out of the box and different look. I am saying that time as we measure it didn't start, that the 10 to the -37Th second second didn't exist.
I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg. I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter and we don't even realize that yet. I am then hinting that time itself is a by-product of the other forces ( hint on which came first). I am concluding ( big jump here) that gravity does not pull! It synchronizes, so then gravity as I understand it did not hold the BB together. I do not have any idea what started the BB or how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen were formed with the exact bonds to create you and me to have this conversation, but I do see evidence of a story with a beginning, middle, and end, almost like the blink of an eye.
Now what I do see is that time and space are functions of generated wave densities
Time is the rate and space is the length ( I am going very basic here) I see why gravity works, I see why the measure of time and space change between objects moving with different densities. I see why, with gravitational wave synchronization, that the universe is acceleration at an increased rate and flattening too. If gravity doesn't pull but synchronizes then there is no reason for dark matter, or energy because space density fields also explain the quagmire with galaxies. I also see why black hole shrink (lose mass) when they run out of mass to consume because they are decaying into space itself.

I see that as all matter decays into the gravitational wave, that space becomes bigger because the fabric of space comes from matter itself. I see that matter doesn't warp time and space but it creates time and space as a point of origin, potential to kinetic energy transfer into the gravitational wave which means that the definition of mass and energy should include the synchronization of gravitational waves, (Effected by gravity), therefore photons should have an ability to have mass that mathematically works!

insight,
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.

>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.

I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.

>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...

So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?

You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.

And, I am not saying what I understand is always correct, either. it is just what i understand.

Statements like

Set me on edge because "falling" is independent of mass of that which falls. The sentence is, to my mind, broken.

I have to run, but I will return to comment further. here is the paper on the SLAC experiment.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf

This post has been edited by meBigGuy on Dec 28 2007, 02:12 AM

Hi meBigGuy,

I feel that I must reply...

You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.

I make many typos... I don't always mean "spelling mistakes" though I make them too. After an hour you can't change these posts and there are many things I would have liked to express in a different way but can't anymore. I write on the fly and it is not proof read by anyone and they are generally pretty complex ideas.

Alright... what was originally in my mind was a region of compact dimensional space in which the space is closed under a Lagrangian. Such an artificial "void" could be devoid of other matter but still contain a photon (... or two). The assumption is fermion particles like electrons could be like this. Normally this provides a "Hilbert Space" in which nothing is reachable outside of that unseen dimensional boundary... a very "simple" kind of "Universe" (as I defined it)... it was wrong... I redefined that... as I see it a typo. Maybe a "blunder" but this is not a Physics Journal and you are no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted.

No... you said that once you reached my typo you did not read any further... So are you saying that what I am writing here is of no worth to you (and presumably everyone) because it does not "please" you? I am sorry about that... disappointed as well. I occasionally get pretty turfed off by people who can't or won't spell of find expressing themselves quite difficult too but I do not normally race off accusing them of "blundering" around. I try to understand the difficulties of expressing Physics in this format. Lets get this on record... I am not "accusing" you of anything, I see myself saying that "anyone" even good scientists will make typos... the statement was not about you making typo's it was about my typo.

You are also saying that you are feeling threatened by "accusations" from me. I really do not see that in my statements. I am the one being put on a block here since it is my statements you are having problems with.

Set me on edge because "falling" is independent of mass of that which falls. The sentence is, to my mind, broken.

Once again this is not something to start your blood pressure rising "setting you on edge"... It is a signal to "put your thinking cap on". It is not possible to say everything here and now. I "hope" that others understand the limitations because my posts are almost universally too long already (like this post). It is clear that you do not naturally have an open mind otherwise you would understand there are "other interpretations" to "antimatter" and these interpretations have existed for as long as "antimatter" has been around. It is a historical fact that needs to be addressed (and it is actually critical to my argument), I am sorry that you are taking such an emotional response to simple "science".

One of the interpretations is that antimatter is gravitationally repulsed by normal matter and this is "probably false" but is an interpretation (that would make it truly "anti") and under such conditions a particle would not fall along a null geodesic toward a common low point in potential energy and would fall along a totally separate solution where matter and anti-matter would curve spacetime in opposite directions leading to saddle solutions to spacetime with a mix of matter and antimatter (loosely interpreted here as "falling up"). You probably don't know about that or that you are "very upset" by suggestions to that effect. I was simply taking care of that point and I agree completely... I was reinforcing the "normalness" (if there is such a word) of "antimatter", there are additional reasons why I "must" interpret this phenomenon in this way. In science you are not supposed to get "emotionally involved" with simple ideas so please don't take some of my ideas "personally".

One idea "I need" is time reversal as the explanation for "antimatter"... this means that so called antimatter is actually just ordinary matter traveling back in time. If it is "ordinary matter" it will still "fall down" while it is undergoing time travel. I guess I was expecting too much there to pick that point up.

In future it would be appreciated if you give a thought to other people who are human (or elves) capable of errors or capable of not quite expressing in terms that everyone is able to agree with... It is going to happen and it is going to happen again... and again... and again. When I am "picked up" I will agree with you... I think that other than being a little wordy I am doing a pretty good job explaining some topics that nobody I know (living or dead) has ever done before and other than direct quotes I am doing in very simple terms that neither normal Physicists or Mathematicians ever attempt in such a small and limited format as is this Forum. If this is not good enough then you can just ignore it... It is a free world.

I appreciate your constructive input... I really do! On a very positive note I thank you for a reference to that paper. That was interesting and thoughtful of you.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf

Cheers from a very "Little Guy"

the big bang was a partial expulsion, a gravitation bomb a build up of monopole wave until, boom! It is still the gravity bomb but now it is taking the slow more stable way. The universe is transitioning from 100% bound matter to 100% free wave. The is the basis of entropy and the driving force for all the laws of nature, a natural flow from potential to kinetic energy. I am proposing that we measure time by the slow decay process because that is how we experience it.

This post has been edited by insight on Dec 28 2007, 01:30 PM

Mis-characterized. I have found it generally not useful to read much past things that don't make sense. Specially on these forums. Stop and ask questions, then continue. You said there were experiments that made your point. Could you post a link for me?

I have an extremely open mind, and am aware of alternative ideas regarding anti-matter. It seems to me that even "anti-mass" would follow the distortion of space caused by matter, even if "anti-mass" distorted it differently. It seemed to me that you were tossing a concept that was unrelated to my original point, that a particle of matter and anti-matter were created.

Did I say threatened? Again your interpretation. You falsely accused me of not reading past typos. Why would I find that anything more than just wrong?

No I didn't. I said I could not for the life of me resolve your blunder and stopped reading at that point.

Have to comment on this again: You are the only one that feels persecuted. I merely feel you are wrong about some things. You may even be right about them, but playing the martyr isn't going to resolve any issues.

So, in a serious attempt to resolve what you say with what I understand, you attack my character and methodology, distort what I say, put words in my mouth, make false assumptions about what I feel, and make out to be a victim.

I pursue ideas aggressively. If you can't handle it, don't respond. And, stop with the personal attacks.

Hi meBigGuy,

Sorry that I have mis-characterized you. Probably a misunderstanding on my part. As I have said before I am not attacking you or your character... I am only trying to interpret you intent. Lets say that this Forum has become very confrontational lately and I have no idea what people want from me other than to leave. Lets stop this rubbish... I think you are not trying to boot me off the forum and we have simply had a poor "first encounter". Truce?

I will need to be very careful in the way I respond to questions since my answers are causing some problems.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 29 2007, 07:46 AM

OK by me truce --- and I'll try to tread lighter.

I'm having a hard time separating what you saying that is supported by experiment, and what are associations/conclusions that you are making intuitively. For the moment I'll assume you are trying to summarize "nearly mainstream" concepts since you have done quite a bit of that so far.

So, I'll try to read carefully and ask quesions when I have them

What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK

Lost me totally

What difference in properties is that? Not sure what initial velocities has to do with it, or how that produces different properties.

Nope --- got a problem here. Two actually. Mass may be the source of some of the potential energy of a system. And, maybe the last two sentences need rewording. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here.

Lost me here totally.

Here's to moving forward, but I warn you, it may be slow at first.

Hi meBigGuy,

I will take this slowly and more carefully because I can see that you are not going to easily accept this as gospel... it most certainly is not. It is also "definitely not entirely mainstream" and there is some content that you will not find in books (though I believe it should be)...

What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK

I meant infinite rate of acceleration. Mass is simply a measure of a particle's reluctance to acceleration. It (Mass) is not a measure of it's energy content otherwise photons would have rest mass. It is the equivalent of Lenz's Law of Induction in electromagnetic theory and is probably closely related to it where a magnet is freely moving at constant velocity inside an infinitely long active solenoid and moves unopposed at a constant velocity until acted on by an accelerating or retarding force... at that point it will experience a reaction in the opposite direction which is an exact analog of mass. Of course this is a one dimensional analog but it is "no coincidence". I can easily back that up with Einstein's own statements on this matter.

The reason that "no clear definition can be given" rests on the idea that all systems of energy are relative to some "arbitrary" level ... energy does not have an absolute value and contains an arbitrary constant of integration. Energy is not a material substance it is capacity for doing work. That "constant" can be chosen to be related to another system such that there is a potential difference between the systems (or a difference in kinetic energy or both) where "work" may be done, that is all energy is. Remember that is "potential" to do work. The velocity of a particle does not change the "mass" of any system (I mean "ponderable mass" being rest mass the mass experienced in the rest frame of a system) since you need to stipulate which system that the "moving particle" is referenced to and there may be many particles in motion in the Universe and to discuss the energy of a particle you must stipulate the system parameters.

Unless "something" actually interacts with a specific system it's total mass is "indeterminate" though rest mass remains an observable in each and every rest frame and motion therefore does not automatically cause any "spacetime curvature" as is implicit in many statements made which say that as v -> C m -> ∞. The only way that mass can be understood as some measurable phenomena is through its rest mass and that is what is causing spacetime curvature everywhere. This does not detract from the fact that binding energy is rest mass because it is an integral part of the system and is released only when the system is "split". Radioactivity is a complex phenomenon and I will not try and justify that point here. This "curvature" is arguably related to the de Broglie standing waves in space which as I have indicated are quasi-stationary due to our inability to measure any advanced potentials. This sinc function is related only to the spatial retarded waves. They are entirely "frozen" in space. The best model of a particle as a quasi-stationary wave is to ignore the idea of particle and to accept that the matter wave itself is the one and only expression of the mass. While the particle is not being "probed" at high energy it occupies as much space as it can through de Broglie's relationship.

... Click to enlarge...
This relationship does not need further verification since it is an experimental fact. Notice that a particle wavelength is inversely proportional to velocity. Particle theories want to quantize spacetime, IMHO this is not advisable, in this theory gravity and mass are continuum theories and to the limits of current theory and experiment there is no contrary data. A close examination of this relationship indicates that measurements of this system is a relationship between orthogonal parameters which are primarily not related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship but related to the more fundamental concept that underlies it of "conjugate measurables". A quick check back will show that the particle uncertainty was "derived" from fourier properties of conjugates and not a fundamental postulate of quantum theory as supposed by many.

Please note that the reference is to h-bar (reduced Planck's Constant) not to Planck Length or other units that have become very popular recently... that is an aside.

Now looking at the equation for de Broglie's Matter Wavelength we can see that it relates strongly to Special Relativity. In fact it describes the wavelength of particles as v -> 0 and as v -> C. More obviously the dynamics of particles with mass as v -> 0 is the low velocity limit of Special Relativity and as you can see λ -> ∞ as v -> 0. This phenomenon can be seen in BEC's which is a unique window on the interaction of matter and Bose Einstein Statistics in confined spaces.

Regarding the situation where m -> 0 and is subject to any force the acceleration will initially approach infinity. Simply an extension of the equations which relate the mass to the acceleration. Naturally as soon as this action occurs the wavelength of any particle that was initially at rest will shrink to approach zero. In the limit of course these events will happen. This behavior is one reason responsible for photons never moving at less than the speed of light. In he case of light the velocity will reach C but the wavelength will not reach 0 because E = hf.... Where for light f =C/λ. The conjugacy property described above "prevents" λ -> 0 by a factor h.

The next point to note about de Broglie's relationship is it's reciprocal property. To illustrate this point consider a particle bobbing up and down on the surface of a pond the wavelength of the ripples emanating from it are a function of velocity. The higher the velocity of the particle through the water the longer the wavelength. This is the reciprocal property relative to such "normal" particles. In regard to mass particles and their associated matter waves the motion of the particle relates to a shortening of the wavelength and proportional to reciprocal dimensions of the oscillating property. The reason is this is a conjugate property well known to those who use Fourier Theory or Spherical Harmonics or other theories of "resonant behavior" such as the "electron shells" in atoms. The oscillator is oscillating in a "reciprocal Hilbert space" where space is replaced with reciprocal space and time is replaced by reciprocal time ... frequency and this explains this matter wave property without any additional presumptions. This fact is supported by experimental researchers such as Carver Mead (a former associate of Richard Feynman). If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.

In Fourier Theory the fundamental "action" is the impulse... in spacial terms the particle and the transform, the conjugate, is the sinc function in all compact dimensions. This is what is "seen" when it is probed at various energies is the "particle". If left alone and not probed these sinc waves fill space and can be seen and demonstrated by Holograms as quasi-stationary standing waves, the same property that can be seen in particle diffraction. They are the spatial equivalent of Bragg Planes extending away from the apparent "matter wave sources" into all space ... even out to the edge of the universe as "universal gravitation". Now the point about this is what is a "matter wave source"?... The answer is there is none... the waves themselves are the only expression of the matter wave sources from a gravitation point of view and their wavelengths and central tendency as sinc functions is the actual source of gravity itself. This tallies with Einstein's Theories where spacetime curvature is rest mass and not just a "pointer" to mass and the gross effect of these stationary sinc wavelets is positive spacetime curvature (the area under the curve all the way out to infinity) being a measure of the rest mass as potential energy.

I will not say any more at this stage since this is enough for a start. Do you agree or disagree? These issues are part of modern experimental procedure and theory appears to be developing along totally different lines often independently of these established principles. Don't ask me why.

Cheers

Hi meBigGuy,

Oops... another "typo"...

I meant "instantly" since this entanglement property and collapse of the state is "instantaneous".

All constructive comments and suggestions appreciated (from all).

Cheers

I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.

I'm still a bit confused about "infinite rate". I see the mass as resistance to acceleration at any rate. Why do you specifically say infinite?

New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_p...iple#Derivation

I managed to follow you up to here. Not that I really get it, but I see how it might hang together. At this point I missed something about your particle in a pond analogy. Bobbing up and down and velocity. Maybe you are refering to the distance the particle travels during 1 "bob cycle"? I can't put that together with reciprocal relationship in DeBroglie. I see in DeBroglie that if v goes up, wavelength goes down. I'm missing something in between.

Needless to say, this is straining my brain.

Hi meBigGuy.

I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.

I quite understand.. Naturally this expansion for photons is only in the phase space... transverse to "directions of propagation". If you accept that wave functions collapse "instantly" then in the transverse direction they also expand "instantly" across the wavefront ... along the wall of the lightcone. The coherence is only among co-moving wavelets of light the photons. In the case of the matter waves of most of the particles ere usually around since the Big Bang so their influence has "always been here" and the wavelets as standing waves are not moving in space or propagating around as some might think, they are quasi-stationary... yet they are still a superposition of states of all the matter waves the same as for the photons which are also a superposition of states, one obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics and the other obeying Bose-Einstein statistics. A sudden acceleration of a single matter wave distributed source will result in it being suddenly localized as a higher frequency rapidly moving "particle". This would be instantaneously communicated throughout the wave packet way out to infinity which is actually in the "near field" (evanescent region) of the source via superpositions. This is because the matter wave is connected with its superpositions and this is a superluminal event. There are experiments that have measured these superluminal phenomena within the near field of the source, they are real measurable processes. Of course this influence falls off rapidly with distance but it never really becomes exactly zero ... obviously there is a practical distance... a cutoff. In the case of QED it is difficult to measure influences beyond the range of a single atomic particle with it's interconnected "cavities". It is beyond current theory to show how a linear theory can be renormalized over a number of interconnected "spatial cavities" to a final sink. Though this is possible using "non-linear methods" to solve a simpler problem in propagation using such methods as "Teaching Feynman’s sum-over-paths quantum theory" by Edwin F. Taylor, Stamatis Vokos, John M. O’Mearac, Nora S. Thornberd.
http://qu-bit.narod.ru/texts/feynman.pdf

A photon moving from one point to another "locally" over a short distance is subject to all those Fermi-Dirac Statistical Interferences and these are a superposition or hybridization of all those wavelets in space and the photon will go to the appropriate sink regardless or because of some influences from exceedingly distant parts of the Universe (Mach's Principle). Recall the experiment I have drawn above
Explanation Of Time Passage, time does not exist... Good Elf
The interferences through the space in which light propagates "feel" all the distant regions through those matter wave interferences. The upshot is light moves with the propagation speed of light but "feels" way out to infinity the interference contributions of all the Matter Waves in the Universe "instantly". This is both for light and for Gravity and the speed of energy transfer of the photon and its properties from one point to another is at that "speed". In the same "process" entanglement is also instantaneous as well as that collapse of state.... with the proviso as to where these influences actually end up in a wider arena of "events and sub-events".

I'm still a bit confused about "infinite rate". I see the mass as resistance to acceleration at any rate. Why do you specifically say infinite?

Pick up on the "typo" in not fully explaining this point it means at t = 0 the packet is subject to an infinite rate of acceleration. There are other issues related to bosons as well but I am keeping the focus on this attribute. No packet of light travels at any other speed other than the local speed of light. The emphasis is an initial response to an impulse of any magnitude (E=hf) of a "massless packet" in it's own frame of reference (no rest mass) will be that the packet will "almost" instantly reach the speed of light if acted on by any force (in this case the photon has momentum and it has energy equal to hf but no rest mass)... On creation it will travel at the speed of light... if travel is a word that can be used here.
F = ma where F is an impulse and m = 0.

New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.

I fully understand... This relationship should have been introduced in Physics 101 and its connection in history fully explained... The "probability" was introduced later to provide a solution for the "Measurement Problem". Quantum Probability does not lead to "measurables" even though measurables is what is actually sought. What probability provides is not even events but only "outcomes" based on a "Monte Carlo" simulation which supposed to invoke all possible ways in which things might happen. This "simulation" works very well biut can make no predictions since it is without "history" and there are no world lines in this treatment. This is missing data.

The orthogonality is a property of Fourier Theory that has existed for a lot longer than Quantum Theory and is not fundamentally a theory of probability and provides a relationship between two measurables. The initial requirement to provide "outcomes" was to match the output of the instrumentation of the time and largely the instrumentation of our time as well... except of thick photographic fine grained emulsions there are few ways to show these results. Initially when Einstein predicted coherent radiation and to the existence of Holograms it was laughed at as being a very foolish concept. At first simple holograms were resisted as being some kind of fakery by the optical fraternity. The appearance of perfectly aligned stationary wavelets actually deposed the wave propagation of light and Richard Feynman knew it. His Quantum Electrodynamics (which followed on from his Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) and his unique insight into Antimatter (Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation) has been relegated to a backwater along with some other theories by eminent personages through Science History... other theories that solve many of the problems that current theory cannot manage. To me it is an open secret but it is a well kept one since nobody seems able or willing to stand up and be counted on this one (other than a couple of elves and people like Carver Mead, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Roger Penrose... ). These individuals have to some extent passed on and the remaining voices are "growing dimmer". Carver Mead is particularly tough on Niels Bohr for ramming home a particularly difficult interpretation of Quantum Theory. The interferences is where everything comes together...

To this day renormalization is necessary because of the conjugate nature of the measurables involved. This is because QED is a linear theory and not a theory of "resonance" like Fourier Theory.

Sorry about that (brain strain) but you are right. The relationship is reciprocal and you can see it in the de Broglie equation/relationship but the analogy is related to moving at a constant velocity in water relative to an observer and "bobbing up and down" at the same time. It is just an artifice to allow you to understand it the "bobbing up and down" (harmonic process) was occurring in a reciprocal space that movement in this compact space through an externally connected spacetime will result in those reciprocal processes of de Broglie, the higher the velocity the shorter the wavelength (higher the frequency of the internal matter wave).. Now all this must be viewed in the context of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory so this is a spatial frequency not a temporal frequency.
Reciprocal space and the reciprocal lattice
This is the electron wave analogy but it is valid for photons as well. Reciprocal Space is derived from Fourier Theory where a "closed dimensional space" is harmonic such as the shells in an atom or cavity excitations... Spherical Harmonics...
In the case of interconnected cavities there is a conversion between normal space into reciprocal space from one cavity to another and then from reciprocal space back to normal space when progressing to another cavity. Using Feynman's Ideas on QED it is simple (almost) to see that this instrument (Optical Fourier Analyzer) represents not "ray spaces" as is used in normal analysis but reciprocal spaces...

... Click to enlarge...
This is the optical equivalent of the Fast Fourier Image Analysis Method.. The two dimensional spatial image is placed in the input plane which is illuminated by plane coherent and diverged light. This is converted to a plane in the conjugate domain of frequency (the reciprocal of space) in the complex transform plane. At this point it could be subjected to a mask or some other spatial filter. This reciprocal space image is passed back through into another "cavity" where it is reconverted back into the original spatial image (less or more of some information contained in the spatial filter). This is the analogy of how matter waves in our Universe actually operate at all scales in all dimensions with this non-linear method which happens to be "perfect" unlike linear methods which is subject to a requirement for renormalization and this operation can be performed over and over without any "approximations". The only limitations is the way the system is band limited leading to a cut off at the high frequency end. In reciprocal space this is the "size" of the limiting aperture. This is the related to the value of Planck's Constant as noted above for photons.

I hope this answers some points...

Cheers

Don't you just hate it when you type a responce and then spell check blinks out and your words are gone. ERROR!

How do we measure time, what is the nature of change. Well, I think the nature of change is the decay of all matter into space itself via the breakdown of electromagnetic fields. But that wasn't so initially. Initially we don't know the shape of the make-up of the singulartiy, but we can deduce a ghostly event horizion. Before the inflation, a mixture of processes, hyperspace, happened. A super hot fluid mosic liquid ball of pre-space and pre-time, a seperating, a mixing and condensing, and stabolizing of the forces. At the end of inflation, slow decay, via a by-product of electromagnetic fields, the gravitational wave,space as we know it. Since I believe our time, the way we measure it, is a by-product of all matter decaying into space itself, then I see before inflation as hyper time where the same rules of slow decay didn't apply. This concept does not say the cart is before or after the horse but it does say that the horse and cart now have an effecient process going on. ps no spell check this time.

If the Universe would continue to expand infinitely, the dilution of mass concentration per volume of space could result in atoms defusing into subatomic particle then into super-positional energy fluctuations popping in and out of existence within the infinite vacuum. Somewhat like the opposite to pre big bang when there was no space because time didn't exist as we understand it. At the infinite dilution of the Universal Space time would be ticking so much faster relative to now it would be happening all at once all at the same time.