Banach–Tarski cosmogony

We nowadays have the description of the electroweak symmetry breaking, but we don't have the strong symmetry breaking or unified force symmetry breaking at the Big Bang.

(Banach–Tarski physical foundations is impossible [you cannot remap the undefined] because it doesn't resolve the physical axiomatics–foundations [= David Hilbert's physical axiomatics, Max Tegmark's computational universe, David Deutsch's universal constructor or any other rigorous logical foundations] as a procedural logical connectome. It maps something without foundations. In the future someone might improve this theory. Its modern version cannot be a physical foundations.)

The Banach–Tarski remapping should be applied to topological quantum field theory during the pre-Big-Bang maximal Planckian degeneracy (we don't have the definition of maximal degeneracy/ glueball degeneracy), and it should decay and adiabatically convert into common quantum field theory. Topological quantum field theory has no measure at maximal degeneracy, and either the event horizon expands or if there is no external spacetime it adiabatically transitions into a big bang decay (a form of internal collapse when there's no external spacetime). Topological quantum field theory in its idealized form is maximally symmetric and without individual specific particles [everything acts a chromodynamic condensate = single particle], but at lower energy levels it becomes typical quantum field theory, and due to symmetry breaking specific biases emerge like particles and the dominance of matter over antimatter; also in standard quantum field theory, endosystemic/ intrasystemic measure makes sense when we compare specific quantized field-phenomena like particles. Quantum field theory is a comparatively low-energy solution of topological quantum field theory. Low-energy here means simply not Planck degeneracy; the energy can be humongous and we can still have particles and not maximal degeneracy pressure of spacetime itself = Planck degeneracy = the chromodynamic fluid torus which replaces the Kerr ringularity in the physical/ natural rotating black hole (which isn't the impossible idealized rotating black hole, because we need a specific maximal degeneracy pressure phenomenon and not a ringularity of zero existence and volume. General relativity doesn't describe the exact behavior of field interactions).// Of course all these ideas are guesses, but we should define the pre-Big-Bang degeneracy state using topological quantum field theory and adiabatically transition it into standard quantum field theory which has more biases, like particles (and it's not permanently a chromodynamic fluid). Of course we can describe particles using topological quantum field theory, but their description becomes more extended. We should describe the symmetry violations based on differences amongst topological quantum field theory and quantum field theory, because our nowadays explanation of the prevalence of matter over antimatter isn't merely wrong, but it doesn't take into account the quantum foundations = axiomatics of quantum field theory = deepest endosystemic self-causation due to it being logically coherent and meeting the prerequisites for physical computability and axiomatics. Mathematics doesn't have self-causal logical foundations because it has gaps within it's foundations completed by exoaxiomatic biases. Physics also is an open axiomatic system, thus there is no finite final theory of the erroneously called closed system of physics. The true mathematics of the physical foundations is allomathematical = mathematics with different axiomatics, because physics has to be a self-sufficient ontological Turing machine. Algorithmic axiomatics works better as a physical foundations than axiomatic lists. Of course physics is logical and it's necessarily convertible to standard mathematics; but the universe is allomathematical and NOT mathematical, which means that we cannot have an overall description of it, instead a case-by-case description, except if we find the exact allomathematics of our universe = the foundations algorithm of the open system universe... which is impossible because it's not a trivially open system = it doesn't only require infinite but simplistic = easily guessable axiomatic variations. We can know more about the physical foundations, but we cannot have a finite theory of a non-trivially infinite foundations.

## gluons don't decay into other particles; but glueballs can

because their strong force interactions can (decay into particles)

* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/421297/do-gluons-decay
* glueball