Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Early Universe

Early Universe

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 LorrettaOShea

LorrettaOShea

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 02:24 PM

Concerning the early universe – if mass and energy are equivalent, then this would mean that these two entities would have always been equivalent, even before the existence of space time. Therefore, mass and energy must have pre-existed the universe. However, there must have been an event that kick-started the universe into action.

Please discuss.



#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 02:51 PM

 

Concerning the early universe – if mass and energy are equivalent, then this would mean that these two entities would have always been equivalent, even before the existence of space time. Therefore, mass and energy must have pre-existed the universe. However, there must have been an event that kick-started the universe into action.

Please discuss.

 

 

The Standard model is the big bang preceded by inflationary stage of the universe. Inflation leads to Baryogenesis which leads to a Big Bang Nucleo Synthesis and creation of particles from Baryons created in the inflationary stage of the universe.  

 

Assuming that the big bang model is correct. The universe started in a Hot Dense state, like what it says on the telly, and cooled to the temperature it is today as evidenced by the CBR.

 

Earlier competing theories suggested particles are created constantly, but could not explain the CBR. 

 

Evidence can be interpreted in different ways.  :zip:



#3 Mutex

Mutex

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 04:17 AM

Mass and energy is not equivalent, they are different aspect of either mass or energy, = means equivalent and M = E is not the equation.

 

There is an amount of energy that you can get out of an amount of mass, that is not the same as saying mass and energy is equivalent.

You just cant interchange the two different things.

 

E = MC2  is correct: However M = EC2 is incorrect.

 

M = E/C2  and E = MC2

 

E, Energy do only go at the speed of light: M, Mass can never go at the speed of light. That is not an equivalence. 

 

Can energy or matter exist without spacetime? C is space time, as c is a speed or velocity a length of space over a length of time.

You can't have E or M or a relationship between the two without spacetime.

 

If spacetime was zero, energy would be infinite... Any amount of energy expressed over zero space length and zero time length is infinite.

If spacetime length was zero, there is no length to contain matter with mass.

 

You need space to put things, you need time for those things to exist over space, energy is not a 'thing', it requires no space you can pack any amount of energy into a single point of space, you can pack exactly 1 amount of matter in a single points of space.

 

Or "you can't have dynamics without time"



#4 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:48 AM

Mass and energy is not equivalent, they are different aspect of either mass or energy, = means equivalent and M = E is not the equation.

 

There is an amount of energy that you can get out of an amount of mass, that is not the same as saying mass and energy is equivalent.

You just cant interchange the two different things.

 

E = MC2  is correct: However M = EC2 is incorrect.

 

M = E/C2  and E = MC2

 

E, Energy do only go at the speed of light: M, Mass can never go at the speed of light. That is not an equivalence. 

 

Can energy or matter exist without spacetime? C is space time, as c is a speed or velocity a length of space over a length of time.

You can't have E or M or a relationship between the two without spacetime.

 

If spacetime was zero, energy would be infinite... Any amount of energy expressed over zero space length and zero time length is infinite.

If spacetime length was zero, there is no length to contain matter with mass.

 

You need space to put things, you need time for those things to exist over space, energy is not a 'thing', it requires no space you can pack any amount of energy into a single point of space, you can pack exactly 1 amount of matter in a single points of space.

 

Or "you can't have dynamics without time"

 You have forgotten the inertia term https://en.wikipedia...rgy_equivalence





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Early Universe