Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Early Universe

Early Universe

  • Please log in to reply
6 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

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1011 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

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 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

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1011 posts

Posted 18 January 2020 - 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



#5 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 22 January 2020 - 05:29 AM

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

 

I just don't think that e=mc2 comes from pure empirical evidence, I don't believe (I hate the word believe!!), I don't think inertia or momentum contributes to mass, 

 

I can certainly accept that when an atom is in it's lowest energy state that is has less mass (common shared forces = lowest energy/mass). So I don't think a hot object is heavier than a cold object, or a fast moving object is heavier either, or a charged capacitor. 

I just do not see any evidence that that is the case. 

 

Plus I don't think it is needed, I don't think Einstein's 'greatest mistake' was a mistake at all, except if you think accepting it as a mistake was a mistake.. (damn now I'm confused).. I'll get back to you!

 

So, I think that e=mc2 is a stand alone and complete, I don't think it needs to be modified for some justification of having an open or closed universe, or for an expanding universe. 

 

I don't it needs interference by quantum mechanics, I think relativity is a far more complete and established by observation than quantum mechanics, QM is in my opinion able or capable of usurping or replacing relativity.

 

I think that mass is energy distributed over (all of) space and time (c2), you could call that energy 'gravity' but I prefer to think of it as the length of space and time, c is space and time (an amount of space over an amount of time). 

 

Mass and energy are not truly equivalent, for one thing mass can never go at c, and energy can only go at c, mass occupies space and time (it is its own reference frame), and energy does not occupy space and time (effectively decoupled from space and time) and has no reference frame at all. (Time and space are meaningless to light/energy). 

 

m = energy / (space x time)2   I have been noodling with the idea that mass gives space a fundamental length property (that we tend to call gravity) the fundamental length property of space gives rise to a time length (the same length) that is why c is a constant.  (length of space/length of time = 1). 

 

Greater mass give longer space (why Black holes redshift, and why Gravitational shift works), but with less mass you have shorter space so in relative terms you have higher energy (same energy over a smaller volume/time). 

 

So there is a universal balance, mass/matter makes space long in order to better distribute and 'flatten out' energy, being at  the bottom of a hill (or in a higher gravity) is a lower energy state. 

 

In a universe with no mass at all, that fundamental length property of space (and therefore time) is zero, and any amount of everyone expressed over zero space length and zero time duration is of course infinite. 

 

As soon as you introduce matter/mass, that fundamental space length becomes non-zero, and the energy of the mass is not what has given rise to the length of space (and therefore the length of time). 

 

What I find interesting about this model is that it provides a mechanism for 'gravity' as that length of space corresponds to 'gravity'  (Big G), it gives a mechanism for why things fall and why we get orbits and such. If you are going at a constant speed (including zero) and you are in that gradient of length you will appear to accelerate (with feeling acceleration), because the fundamental length of space 'down' is getting longer, you are not going more meters per second, you are going longer meters per longer second. You are in free fall. 

 

Down then becomes the direction of local length of space, and gravity is the gradient of that length. Making gravity a field potential model with every point in space having a number, that number is the sum total of all the length of space contributions from all the mass in the universe as a function of the mass and your distance from that mass. 

 

The greatest contribution to that length is the 'gravity capture' or has the greatest influence on your motion, this makes space very flat, and of course 'gravity' (the length gradient) very shallow or 'weak'. 

 

I might try to do a post on this one day, and see what you guys think, I will put on my systems engineer's cap and build a universe that looks and acts like ours (overall) by using just that wonderful equation e=mc2.

 

After all the only components we have to work with is matter and energy and space and time, so no surprise the all appear in one simple equation. You just don't need anything else.

 

Just like you don't need any more than a simple switch to build the biggest computer and run the most complex programs using a very basic and fundamental principles. (anyway, that's my daily quota of the use of the word fundamental, so I will end this here to save you all more pain.. 



#6 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1011 posts

Posted 22 January 2020 - 11:16 AM

I just don't think that e=mc2 comes from pure empirical evidence, I don't believe (I hate the word believe!!), I don't think inertia or momentum contributes to mass, 

 

I can certainly accept that when an atom is in it's lowest energy state that is has less mass (common shared forces = lowest energy/mass). So I don't think a hot object is heavier than a cold object, or a fast moving object is heavier either, or a charged capacitor. 

I just do not see any evidence that that is the case. 

 

 

 

Is radiation pressure not a good enough example of radiation exchanging momentum between mass and an electromagnetic field, Also you have the casimir effect showing that even virtual particles can apply a pressure.  EDIT https://en.wikipedia...iation_pressure

 

 

I don't it needs interference by quantum mechanics, I think relativity is a far more complete and established by observation than quantum mechanics, QM is in my opinion able or capable of usurping or replacing relativity.

 

I think that mass is energy distributed over (all of) space and time (c2), you could call that energy 'gravity' but I prefer to think of it as the length of space and time, c is space and time (an amount of space over an amount of time). 

 

Mass and energy are not truly equivalent, for one thing mass can never go at c, and energy can only go at c, mass occupies space and time (it is its own reference frame), and energy does not occupy space and time (effectively decoupled from space and time) and has no reference frame at all. (Time and space are meaningless to light/energy). 

 

m = energy / (space x time)2   I have been noodling with the idea that mass gives space a fundamental length property (that we tend to call gravity) the fundamental length property of space gives rise to a time length (the same length) that is why c is a constant.  (length of space/length of time = 1). 

 

 

 

 

It appears that space and time are both emergent properties at the quantum level. Emergent gravity by Verlinde and associates already can predict everything GR can predict without the dark matter required to balance the equations. GR likely wont be usurped until all the GR profs have died out.  

 

I wonder if it is not the wave functions that does not occupy space time, allowing entangled particles to transfer information between distant connected parts of space time. As has been demonstrated last year !

 

 

 

 

 

Greater mass give longer space (why Black holes redshift, and why Gravitational shift works), but with less mass you have shorter space so in relative terms you have higher energy (same energy over a smaller volume/time). 

 

So there is a universal balance, mass/matter makes space long in order to better distribute and 'flatten out' energy, being at  the bottom of a hill (or in a higher gravity) is a lower energy state. 

 

In a universe with no mass at all, that fundamental length property of space (and therefore time) is zero, and any amount of everyone expressed over zero space length and zero time duration is of course infinite. 

 

As soon as you introduce matter/mass, that fundamental space length becomes non-zero, and the energy of the mass is not what has given rise to the length of space (and therefore the length of time). 

 

What I find interesting about this model is that it provides a mechanism for 'gravity' as that length of space corresponds to 'gravity'  (Big G), it gives a mechanism for why things fall and why we get orbits and such. If you are going at a constant speed (including zero) and you are in that gradient of length you will appear to accelerate (with feeling acceleration), because the fundamental length of space 'down' is getting longer, you are not going more meters per second, you are going longer meters per longer second. You are in free fall. 

 

Down then becomes the direction of local length of space, and gravity is the gradient of that length. Making gravity a field potential model with every point in space having a number, that number is the sum total of all the length of space contributions from all the mass in the universe as a function of the mass and your distance from that mass. 

 

The greatest contribution to that length is the 'gravity capture' or has the greatest influence on your motion, this makes space very flat, and of course 'gravity' (the length gradient) very shallow or 'weak'. 

 

I might try to do a post on this one day, and see what you guys think, I will put on my systems engineer's cap and build a universe that looks and acts like ours (overall) by using just that wonderful equation e=mc2.

 

After all the only components we have to work with is matter and energy and space and time, so no surprise the all appear in one simple equation. You just don't need anything else.

 

Just like you don't need any more than a simple switch to build the biggest computer and run the most complex programs using a very basic and fundamental principles. (anyway, that's my daily quota of the use of the word fundamental, so I will end this here to save you all more pain.. 

 

You seem to be stuck in a loop, There are lots of theory on gravity, you best post your theory and see what comments you get.


Edited by Flummoxed, 22 January 2020 - 11:19 AM.


#7 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 24 January 2020 - 10:29 PM

Is radiation pressure not a good enough example of radiation exchanging momentum between mass and an electromagnetic field, Also you have the casimir effect showing that even virtual particles can apply a pressure.  EDIT https://en.wikipedia...iation_pressure

 

 

I have to admit my first post was a bit pithy.. 

 

I don't think it is a momentum exchange, I would use the term 'impart', radiation does not have a true momentum, it has energy that can give matter (electrons) a moment. 

 

That virtual particles impart a pressure in the Casimir effect is a conclusion of the effect, it's a conclusion I do not agree with. 

 

If you could detect virtual particles as easily as measuring the force between two metal plates, it would be trivial to gain a great deal of real data on the nature of virtual particles and I would expect we would detect them all the time in sensitive detectors such as at CERN. 

 

The scientific method is a process of elimination, you don't draw a conclusion until you can positively rule out all other possible causes, that two metal plates show a near field attraction (force), for me just reeks of electric and magnetic forces, and not from the creation and force from virtual particles. 

 

 

It appears that space and time are both emergent properties at the quantum level. Emergent gravity by Verlinde and associates already can predict everything GR can predict without the dark matter required to balance the equations. GR likely wont be usurped until all the GR profs have died out.  

 

I wonder if it is not the wave functions that does not occupy space time, allowing entangled particles to transfer information between distant connected parts of space time. As has been demonstrated last year !

 

You seem to be stuck in a loop, There are lots of theory on gravity, you best post your theory and see what comments you get. 

 

 

"It appears that space and time are both emergent properties at the quantum level"

 

For me gravity is an 'emergent property' of matter, the length of space is emergent from matter that requires a length of space to exist in.  I don't think it is a force at all, either an entropic force associated with the information associated with matter and their positions.

 

EXCEPT, if you consider the information to be about the space itself, and that is the length information, (a field potential model). The field (every point in space has a number), is the length information of space. 

 

 

"associates already can predict everything GR can predict without the dark matter required to balance the equations. GR likely wont be usurped until all the GR profs have died out." 

 

The trouble is, is that it is very easy to 'predict' what is already known, if you pick something that is correct and you rework it with a different mathematical construct, then that does not mean you're particular method to achieve the same end is the better model.

 

Can emergent gravity predict Einstein shift of light? Clocks going at different rates and so on? For me it is no so much what a model predicts but what it explains I want to explain why a clock measures time at different length in different locations, and why LIGO measures the length of space, and why the speed of light is the same regardless of your length of space.

 

You seem to be stuck in a loop, There are lots of theory on gravity, you best post your theory and see what comments you get.

 


True, I am stuck in a loop, but it's not my theory it's relativity, more to the point though is that I make no presuppositions, not even that relativity is correct.

I am just looking at what we observe, what we see and measure as facts (or effects if you like). 

 

I only draw conclusions from these observations, the observations I use are the tests for relativty. (4 or 5 of them).

What we see when we take instruments in the field and do measurement.

 

The only conclusions I can then draw are conclusions that agree with what we observe. 

 

So my 'theory' is just how I interpret what we observe and why we observe those effects, 

 

So I am only interpreting relativity from a different perspective, relativity is right, clocks DO go at different rates, length of space and the length of time do change, are variables, and the speed of light is a constant (LIGO, time dilation and c).

 

I just do not think relativity is a function of your relative positions, it's a function of the relative length of space. So I don't have to justify the position of the array element or address that element (X,Y,Z,t) address, I just have to know the VALUE of the array element. 

 

I just have to know the relative length and not the relative position the dimension of space is just that, its length, the dimension is not its position or direction.

 

I think that I will do a post and seek comment, am working on it..

 

Thanks, it's nice to have some people to bounce off.. 

 

 





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