I don't get stuck on words, Rex. I will agree that analogies are my tool, and I can understand that you want it all written down in scientific language. One example to proffer is the 'lack of unification' or to keep in line with plain words 'ultimate separation' instead of using ‘divorce’. No biggie.
When viewing matter, all scientists are already agreeing that we live in a result and not in the original state. How that came to be is the question. Yet the establishment of matter is itself an acknowledgment already that a fundamental line got crossed some 13.8 billion years ago. Something fundamental happened otherwise matter would have not been established.
In plain language: one cannot have matter as a result and not have a fundamental break occurring first with whatever existed prior. Not possible.
Yes, a five year old can understand that. We agree.
--
I have wanted to talk about QM, again from that same overall perspective in which a unified reality is missing. It will again be using plain words.
Because we do not need to look for some form of unification among all, we can look at the subatomic reality and find ourselves the most important structural piece of information:
The universe is neutral in charge, while the subatomic reality has positive protons and negative electrons in place. We see two distinct environments therefore, the overall neutral reality distinctly different from the specific environment that contains opposite charges.
The first thing to notice about the positive protons and the negative electrons being fully in balance is that we can declare them as an action and a reaction.
Once this is acknowledged, we can see how this is a perfect negation. That means, with viewing the electrons as the reaction to the protons, that there was plenty energy available to establish that perfect negation. Nowhere do we see that there is a shortage of electrons.
What this tells us is that we need to review the protons and the neutrons as the parts that express the fundamental change we are trying to understand. The electrons are declared the reactions, they arrived (nano seconds) later. So let's focus on the action and leave the reaction for later.
Protons and neutrons are quarks, and what we notice right away is that quarks do not exist by themselves; they are visible within the neutrons and protons but they are not independent parts. They do not exist all by themselves.
This is again vital information, because what we can see with this is that the quarks got established in a process of great pressure. It was not a change from State A to State B; something fundamental happened to State A, and the quarks resulted.
Let's ignore the Lambda-CDM model for now, and just accept that great pressure is the one requirement only; let’s not focus on the (false) claim that the starting situation for the materialization process had to be super-hot.
Of course, heat will be a byproduct of pressure, particularly when a fundamental warping is part of the process, yet there is no reason to assume it was super-hot. The results calculated based on the adiabatic process are true only in that one model, and that model is structurally too simplistic.
When focusing just on an increase in pressure, then we need a situation in which a large segment (of immaterial energy) was capable of applying great pressure on a relatively small segment (of immaterial energy). That intense pressure caused the immaterial energy of the small section to become a quark soup, which in turn would of course obliterate that setup of pressure.
From one original setup, we ended up getting an additional aspect that did not exist prior, but only for a very small part of that original setup.
As a result, the highly pressured area of immaterial energy, with now that damaged small segment included, would all catapult outwardly. We do not see an explosion from center outwardly; we see a highly concentrated pressurized area that retracted when damage occurred; catapult the right word to use.
As soon as the space became available for the quark soup to move about, the quarks formed the neutrons and the protons right away (at the CMBR). Only after the protons had been established (with their positive charge) did the electrons come about (from the very large remainder of immaterial energy). This was so quick and fast, this is also part of the CMBR.
--
It does not matter if we call the original state just potential in essence or of an immaterial energized quality. Either way, we need a fundamental break among that potential/energy. The 'egg' has to break. The 'egg' cannot become an 'omelet' all by itself without breaking first. Not possible. Whatever the prior state was, it had to experience a fundamental break among itself, and a tiny segment experiencing that fundamental distinction is all it takes.
Is there scientific data for this? Yes, the entire material outcome is the data.
There is so much readily available at the overall level, Rex, when reviewing all data from a structural perspective. It is a shame that physicists were not trained in structural thinking because what happened from a structural perspective would have been figured out in the fifties or sixties already.
One does not need data that confirms the data. One needs a brain to read the data.
