Almost correct, Richard.
First off, the group of physicists is larger than the most prevailing ideas indicate. There are indeed physicists that dabble in the area prior to the materialization process and sometimes they get some attention, though not often.
When asked, the real good physicists will declare that the scientific story ends where the data ends, and they will refrain of making an absolute conclusion about the prior state. Unfortunately, a large group is not that sophisticated and end up taking in absolute positions.
--
Myself, I use a mechanical approach next to the scientific data, and as such I can peer a little further back, but I need to show you how that is possible from a mechanical perspective (that does not go against anything we know scientifically).
I use analogies to show the mechanisms:
When confronted with an omelet, we know two very important mechanical things:
1/ There was an egg
2/ The egg had to get broken
If we have a universe full of matter, then we know 100% certain that there was a source. For this mechanical approach, we do not need to delve into the specifics of that source at all, except for acknowledging that the source was indeed capable of producing the results.
We have no idea where the egg came from, and I hope you see that the egg is the stand-in for Energy. The omelet is then the stand-in for Matter.
What this shows is that if we want to end up with a fundamentally distinct outcome, then we must have a fundamental break of that source itself. That break cannot be placed with the materialization process; it has to be placed prior to the results coming forth.
What is the fascinating aspect from this first mechanical view is that in this case the egg had to break the egg.
How would that be possible? I use another analogy, this time of a broken toy:
The broken toy shows us two important mechanical things:
1/ Nothing extra got added and nothing evaporated into thin air when the toy broke; the pieces are indeed in pieces, but the pieces of the toy are all there.
2/ The special trick the toy was able to perform is no longer there, gone for good. The special trick was not based on all the pieces, but rather on all pieces being connected intact. Nothing disappeared, except for the special ability.
What this mechanical view tells us is that the prior state would have had an ability no longer present. The prior state can then be declared to be of Energy of a certain setup, and how this setup ended up breaking.
When looking at physicists declaring the universe started out from a quantum fluctuation, they appear to be saying that there was nothing prior. Yet looking closely, the quantum fluctuation did not start up by itself. As such, even those that want a zero-sum universe have to acknowledge that the starting position cannot have been zero-sum.
We know for 100% that there was a source. We need not know anything more about that source than the fact that it was capable of producing the results.
--
The two presented mechanical perspectives inform the Big Whisper model, which is a twin Big Bang model but with different starting points. The Big Whisper model does not have the materialization process start from a super-hot position (but indeed from an extremely high-pressured position), nor is there any need for cosmic inflation.
Scientific data must for the model, yet the Large Hadron Collider, for instance, does not tell us anything about how matter came to be. It only tells us how matter behaves in a Large Hadron Collider. As such, it is not very useful scientific data.
I'll leave it up to you if you are interested in desiring more on this.
Thank you for your reply.
