Part II - Of Big bang, infinite universes and duality (divine dichotomy)

This, as is obvious is a continuation of the previous post. The later half of the same fart session, described in this post, has made me see things in new light, as we really dug hard into infinity....

According to the big-bang theory, as I know, universe as we see now, originated from a point source quite sometime back. Now, the big-bang says that universe came out of a point source. I wonder as to what had happened to the rest of the space? If I were to say that the point source of energy were to be located at a point, what about the point near by that point? What existed there? Nothingness? What characterises this nothingness? Undefinable? ether? neither???

Anyway, if I were to say that space had originated as a result of the after-math of big-bang, space shouldn't exist before big-bang. But as the big-bang theory states the evolution of the universe, I fail to see, how the space nearby the point-source of energy didn't exist before big-bang.
The whole idea of the universe we see now coming out of nothingness, makes one think of what had happened to the rest of the space before big-bang, it essentially makes one think of space, even before big-bang had occured. It comes as a contradiction that I have to think about space, even before space originated!

Hence the space that exists now, after the big-bang, existed even before the big-bang. This can only happen if the big-bang occured in all of space. This means, big-bang did occur, but it didn't occur at a discrete point, a dirac delta function so to say, but it occured at all points in space ; it was a series of infinite dirac-delta functions(making it continuous!) that after the big-bang exploded into infinite universes

But then these infinite universes weren't distinct entities differentiable from each other, since the universes coming out of nearby points would interact with each other. Hence, infinte universes could as well be called a single universe, as it was the same space into which these univerese had exploded into, and if space were to be used to categorise univereses, then all universes would occupy the whole of space at some point of time
since the big-bang explosion(s).

Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about parallel universes when you look at the big-picture, but deeper inside, at the nano, nay sub-atomic level, nay, at a level where particle-size tends to zero, individual universes were created, which then merged into the whole as a single universe.

So where does, duality arise, you ask? It starts right at the moment when big-bang occured, or right at the moment when infinte big-bangs occured. That is when a singular primal infinte energy source began the energy-mass conversion into matter and anti-matter(dark energy), that is when space and time as we know came into existence, that is when relativity came into existence, that is when everything could be seen in dual perspectives. The existence of infinite singularities in continutity(dirac-delta ad infinitum). Even the existence of infinite universes at the sub-sub...(ad infinitum)-atomic level, only to merge into a single universe is an example of this duality or more beautifully, divine dichotomy.

Take an example of a rock. From afar, the rock appears to be motionless and still. But when you examine it under a poweful microscope, what do you see? You see a lot of activity, electrons hurtling around at speeds unimaginable, the whole of the matter that makes up the rock is in a state of constant motion, yet the rock itself is stationary. Which is true, the rock is stationary or it is in a state of constant motion?

We agreed that matter and anti-matter could fuse back to form energy, but what about the nature of matter and anti-matter.
It is the characteristic of matter to have a gravitational force on matter close-by. And anti-matter or dark energy, which have negative mass, have the property of anti-gravity or repulsive force, that push things away.

But what I am not sure is whether these forces(of attraction and repulsion)
1) are a property or nature of matter and anti-matter or
2) are they forces that come into play when these particles interact and also does matter interact only with matter and anti-matter only with anti-matter; i.e. is to say there is no interaction between matter and anti-matter?
But I guess, it makes no difference whatsoever in two of the following three interactions...

Lets consider, the interaction between these entities:
a) matter and matter - In both the cases(above 1&2), there would be a gravitational pull.
b) anti-matter and anti-matter - In both cases again, there would be an anti-gravitational push.
c) Matter and anti-matter - In case 1, the matter would pull the anti-matter and the anti-matter would push the matter. If the forces are of equal magnitude, the forces would nullify and hence the motion of matter and anti-matter wouldn't be affected.
But if they aren't of equal magnitude, and the matter dominates over anti-matter, then they would coalesce to form energy! and the other case would be that they would repulse away.

In case 2, there would be no interaction between matter and anti-matter.

But what about the forces themselves, that come into effect when these entities interact. Isn't that a form of energy. If it is, then big-bangs didn't result in the
complete conversion of energy into matter and anti-matter alone. Was then the unmanifested energy carried forward after the big-bang? Was the magnitude of this energy which was carried forward, infinite?

I am not sure of the answer to these questions, it doesn't seem as important and magnificent as the act of creation itself - of the creation of duality from singularity, of infinite universes that seem like a single universe, of the rock that moves and doesn't move at the same time....