As I’m also a non-professional, I’d like to use your your comment to add my experience with studying quantum mechanics:
From all my studies of both math and lab experiments, intuitively and likely in reality, matter at the quantum level is made of vibrations, oscillations and standing waves of “SpaceTime.” The amplitude, frequency, position, magnetic moment (spin/charge), temperature, pressure and other properties are what we measure and thus describe particles and emergent phenomena like phonons and other quasi-particles.
So this all seems simple enough, we have mathematical descriptions and tools to measure with, what’s this whole issue with “observation” and how how far do we need to take it?
My simple answer is: whenever you see “observer”, translate it to interaction. This can be anything, so long as it interacts with the quantum system being “observed.” But what does this really mean, why does it matter so much? Go back to our wave properties and understand that anything quantum that interacts with anything else quantum is actually introducing their own wave properties and thus, allowing quantum interactions. That is, it’s likely impossible to use something with quantum wave properties (which everything has) to precisely measure something else with quantum wave properties and not have some level of wave disruptions - in other words, we cannot have precise measurements because the closer your quantum measuring tool tries to measure another object’s quantum property, the more the interactions influence the results. The Copenhagen perspective, as I’ve come to orient my understanding, is a question of: does the math reflecting these wave interactions/measurements of them, only mathematically describe it, or do we take the math literally and call it reality?
There are those in both camps and especially as a non-professional, I join the camp that says it only mathematically describes reality. Keep in mind, relativity of all objects makes it so even the very conditions of the experiment can skew results; the quantum level is extremely sensitive to its wave environment and even in a vacuum, the zero-point energy field exists. Also, keep in mind that just because you can’t precisely measure a given property doesn’t mean that you can’t have very good measurements of most/all properties; it’s only a matter of how badly you need to precisely know any given property.
There’s obviously more nuance, but I think the key thing that I want to impart is not to take quantum mathematics to literally, but it’s the best description and predicting tool that we have for that level of physics.
I am firmly one of those who doesn’t have high hopes for Dark Matter - or isotropic Dark Energy. For now I think MOND is developing a better representation of gravity and aspects of our cosmology. What I’m most curious about is what, if any, emergent/quasi-fields might form in space where it’s dominated by EM fields; I added gravity as it can still be a factor, given it is a omnipresent field throughout our universe - even in cosmic voids.
“Solids are made of only three kinds of particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. None of these are quasiparticles; instead a quasiparticle is an emergent phenomenon that occurs inside the solid. Therefore, while it is quite possible to have a single particle (electron, proton, or neutron) floating in space, a quasiparticle can only exist inside interacting many-particle systems such as solids.” Quasiparticle Wiki
I’ve also been studying Phonons on Wiki: " However, photons are fundamental particles that can be individually detected, whereas phonons, being quasiparticles, are an emergent phenomenon."
This is the micro/quantum phenomena I’m trying to further understand and was wondering if any quasi-fields/particles have been discovered or predicted in space - I couldn’t find any so far.
I’m not interested in questioning Einstein’s gravity - it’s super successful. I was interested in the history and alternative ideas that beaches out and died and the Wiki did have some decent info and even papers on “ether.” Fascinating and maybe intuitive for its time. It’s very hard to find any writing on postulating the mechanics that cause gravity to warp space/time. I was mostly interested in finding if there was some kind of wave function (not a graviton) within to describe the, “why.” There’s so much energy within atoms that you’d think there was more than enough room for hypotheticals, but none that are famous enough to discover on the Internet.
Additional question that’s related, if you’d like to try it: I’ve read about vacuum energy/zero point energy - hawking radiation exists because of those theories. From what I’ve read, vacuum energy has the potential for any form of matter but because of the uncertainty principle, less likely to produce higher forms of energy, and thus why most fluctuations produce only virtual particles. My main question then is: so no matter what, all of space ether has matter or potential for matter? If so, should a photon actually collide with a virtual particle it would actually stay in physical existence)?
Thank again
I would assume I’m not interested in any of the associated crackpot ideas some have.
Observably and experimentally, it’s so hard to test powerful gravity fields. But theoretically, if we could confine and increase a portion of matter into a far more dense state, we should be able to create increased gravity - I think that’s possible, but it would take insane energy and you’d have to control it to a point that it doesn’t turn into a giant explosion; seems very probable and should be conducted in space…just to be safe.
But, is your thinking that if we have a net zero energy universe, it should not have a big bang, or just that a net zero may have originated differently from a big bang? I’m just curious.
I though I saw your avatar before and we have indeed crossed paths before and seem to be on the same cosmological discovery. You seem very pragmatic in your comments. How has your research on a non-big bang origin developing? Seems I have some catching up to do on Penrose - what are your initial thoughts?
That’s a great YouTube channel. I’ve been checking out the wiki on zero point energy and with all the associated links, that seems to have the answers I’m looking for. Thank you. 
This link was amazing. Thank you so much and it seems I need to dive deeper into quantum mechanics.
This was honestly the answer I was after. Have you read about Black Hole cosmology? I’m not certain how probable it is to be true, but it’s extremely interesting and along with Roger Penrose’s own eon theory, it seems likely that the universe is cyclical.
I haven’t read Roger Penrose’s theory yet, but a lot of my intuition is pointing to something like a cyclic big bang (akin to a universe of energy being released from a back hole-like origin) before eventually evolving into a big crush and repeating the cycle. I need to read Roger Penrose’s theory to compare it to my intuition. 
But quantum mechanics seem to have the answers on how antimatter/baryon matter is formed through the relationship of fields and quanta energy vibrations.
Edit: another commenter linked me to zero point energy, and with its relating links, that seems to give me the answers I was after. 
I was trying not to write too much but I guess it’s hard to ask without more context.
I’ve been reading about how antimatter results from particle accelerators and high energy collisions in space. But in layman terms, when these high energy collisions occur, are we simply allowing released energy to form into antimatter?
My understand is when electrons and protons have extreme collisions or forced too close within extreme gravity, they form neutrons or other particles (including photons). These are examples of matter into energy into matter. But are the “blueprints” that tell energy how to form into baryon matter in the energy (that is, does quantity and/or power cause the resulting state), the strong/weak fields influencing it, or some other mechanism?
