Theories vs. Observable Facts of the Metaverse/Universe

This is a comment about contemporary cosmological topics. I enjoy reading cosmology books by physicists or astronomers occasionally-popular books written for the general public. Over time one gets unanswered ideas. As in language use or about any other kind of learning, synthetic recombination of concepts is a normal experience.

So a few of the most basic concepts of cosmology such as the big bang, the nature of space, gravity and so forth can present some new ideas unanswered by the information in the cosmology publications that one remembers. Following are a few basic questions about the big bang legend that were investigated a long time ago I am sure, yet I can’t recollect reading the answers recently…

Space-time theories such as loop quantum cosmology, string theory and membrane theory tend to draw upon Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and its equations to construct mathematical models of the history of the Universe backwards in a reduction in size and increase of mass density and energy to a singularity.

The General Theory, I believe, allows an infinite amount of mass and energy to form at the singularity that equations indicate are the precursor of the big bang and inflation of the Universe, yet obviously an infinite amount of energy or mass at any point in the history of the Universe is inconsistent with just a finite amount of energy in the Universe as its sum at any time.

Philosophically I am brought to wonder if physicists have calculated the values for the total quantity of mass-energy in the Universe today based on a 13.7 billion year old start time, and determined how much force all of that mass-energy would have if compacted to a point of any given area-even a very small singular condition. What kind of speed of expansion would it provide if given to expand at that instant long ago?

Reading a book about the research area of loop quantum gravity I realized that the physical theorists make cosmological models at the big bang that are something of yo-yo like recurrent mirror images of the theory of expansion of the Universe on this side (pervasively based on Einstein’s general theory criteria). One actually has no valid reason to assume that the laws of physics on this side of the alleged expansion/inflation are the same as those on the other side with reversed positive or negative signs.

I have read of string theory cosmological explanations of field instability and quantum fluctuations that might have generated a Higgs field to expand, compacted space-atom lattices that would repel themselves given near singularity conditions, and the formation of a white hole and near singularity from a perturbative vacuum, yet I do not recollect reading about the values that a finite singularity with only so much energy and mass to start would have. How large of a Universe of mass and energy could be made consistent with the known speed of expansion and other observable facts of the material of the Universe? What would the size and velocity of the initial explosion need to be in order to be consistent with observations?

There are several ‘fudge factors’ today in cosmology to make theoretical, mathematical criteria work. A cosmological constant, an inflation faster than light, dark energy and dark matter-even anti-matter perhaps, might be considered as fudge factors.

The facts of observations of the Universe are quite excellent today; are there good ‘common sense’ calculations about what size of a singularity the general theory would need to stop at in order to be consistent with the calculated amount of mass-energy of the Universe? Would such comparative calculations help if applied to formulating theories about the mechanics of black holes?

Sure, I realize that it’s said that the Universe did not start from an ordinary a-bomb like explosion. Expansions provide sophisticated parameters with inflation, membranes, quantum instability and etc. Yet if it is regarded as a detonation (perhaps in some kind of a containment medium- (a shaped space field?)) of a finite amount of mass-energy, what kind of values can physicists get, and would they fit the facts of the observable Universe at all?

If there was an infinite amount of mass and energy at a singularity and it exploded, expanded or was repelled then we would never see the end of its expansion I would think, and its power values might be inferred from the observed facts of the mass-energy of the Universe. Instead of treating the infinities of General Relativity as incompleteness or errors, can’t they be regarded as temporal terminus vectors like the summit of mountains? Such places are good places to expand from along the slope of gravity to a broader base.