Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

or the 13.8 billion year plan.

 

It really isn't that difficult to imagine a Universe prior to the Big Bang.

Since the Higgs-Boson is thought to be the Creation Particle and would have been around prior to the Big Bang the Universe might have been teeming with Higgs-Boson Particles on a massive scale.

But what process created the Higgs-Boson would the next logical question to ask be just like a god like figure in the infinite theory of creation any god like figure would first need to be created in order to create.

Although god can never be proven to exist or not exist the notion of infinity that surrounds the ideology just like particles proves that Universe is in fact infinite and that the farter down the rabbit hole we travel the more infinite in our knowledge we become.

....A goddess however can be proven to exist.

Meaning that E=MC^2 can be proven within the confines of a gravitational environment AFTER a Big Bang has occurred but not prior to a Big Bang taking place.

 

And again.

I'm not going to say that you're wrong. But I will repeat that all your usages of the term "Big Bang" are inconsistent with the Expanding Universe Model as it's understood. (Similar to all your incorrect references to the Higgs boson.) What I just quoted from your post is a total non sequitur.

Therefore, you will need to explain how you envision a "Big Bang" and what that term means if you expect to make any sense at all.

 

I am. He is.

 

I'd say the iguana has the chops to do so. But anyway, I'd still like Dryson to explain what he means by a "Big Bang" -- rather than simply spouting the term.

And I am not an astrophysicist or any other sort of trained scientist. Please feel free to correct me if my references or usages are wrong.

 

I would be more optimistic if his previous musings had made at least a modicum of sense, but at this point, I am kinda skeptic.

 

What is the number that crosses the line from finite to almost infinite?

 

The net energy in the expansion from the initial singularity was probably zero given that the curvature of the Universe is found to be flat -- the positive mass-energy balance appears to be precisely cancelled out by the negative gravitational potential energy. For a full explanation, see chapter 6 "The Free Lunch at the End of the Universe" in A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M Krauss.

 

This brings up another really good question which can be answered based on already proven facts.


given that the curvature of the Universe is found to be flat...

The Earth was once perceived to be flat as well until explorers realized that the ports they were sailing from were not sinking the farther that they traveled from the port but in fact that the ocean they were sailing on had a curve to it the same as an orange or an apple has a curvature.

With the Earth having a curvature that has been proven to be curved and not flat then the Universe that we live in will also be part of a much larger curvature with an immense gravitational field at the center of the Universal Curvature that would be similar to the core of planet Earth with each Universe being an ocean upon the planet surface of a much larger world.

This theory can be proven using General Relativity - General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometrictheory[B[/URL]] of [/B]gravitation[B[/URL]] published by [/B]Albert Einstein[/URL] in 1916. General relativity generalizes special relativity[/URL] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation"]Newton's law of universal gravitation[/URL], providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space[B[/URL]] and [/B]time[B[/URL]], or [/B]spacetime[B[/URL]]. In particular, the [/B]curvature[B[/URL]] of spacetime is directly related to the [/B]energy[B[/URL]] and [/B]momentum[B[/URL]] of whatever [/B]matter[B[/URL]] and [/B]radiation[B[/URL]] are present. The relation is specified by the [/B]Einstein field equations[/URL], a system of partial differential equations[/URL].

Geometric Theory of Gravitation would apply to the entirety of the Universe before the Big Bang that created our Universal center that then created the actual Big Bang that created our Universe for the simple fact some type of gravitational force that we have yet to discover would have formed the Universal Center into a geometric theory equation that would then have expanded rapidly in an outwards manner thus effecting particles such as the Higgs-Boson that then added mass to the expanding particles that then created our Universe. So the theory of the Universe being flat is hogwash because the Earth is not flat but of a geometric gravitational theory proven by Einstein and early mariners which then translates back to the beginning of our Universe being a geometric gravitational theory where the Universal Center would have a curvature to it.

The entire Universe cannot be flat because that would put a limit or edge to the term of infinity which like the early mariners proved the Earth is not flat so therefore infinity cannot be flat.

Everything has a curvature to it. An orange, a breast, an apple, our heads, the heel of our feet, our fingernails even our arms and legs all have some type of curvature. If the Universe was flat then we would be flat as well.

Einsteins theory of General Relativity does prove that the Universe is round and not flat...but it still does not prove that light speed is the fastest velocity possible outside of a solar and black hole causality of quantified entanglement of particles.

 

So where did you cut and paste that from? You should really attribute your sources.

 

In this case, I think he's doing the author a favor by not attributing it.

 

Another very important factor that must be added into E=MC^2 not being a Universal constant prior to the Big Bang is the afterlife.

A co-worker, who studies theology, and I were discussing ghost's and other apparitions today at work. We talked about what I had seen and what he knew related to ghost's. We got on the subject of how people see them from time to time but shows like Ghosthunter on SyFy never seem to capture any proof other than what are called orbs.

Now we know that life forms and plants absorbed light all the time and therefore reflect that light back out through the release of energy that the eyes can see and the brain then translates into a visible object.

Once a person passes on the energy in their body remains and slowly dissipates over several weeks. Perhaps the residual energy is collected within Dark Energy that since it is not effected by gravity but does in fact hold the key to our seeds prior to Big Bang that were released after the Big Bang retains something of our persona where the spirit inside of the Dark Energy stream is able to use Dark Energy to coalesce into a form that we can see in our dreams and waking dreams as well as appearing as orbs and the occasional black post in photographs that appear shortly after a loved one has passed on.

If ghosts existed in the same realm that we do then they would absorb light in the same manner that we do therefore allowing us to see them more often as well as being able to capture them on camera.

Light that we can see functions in a gravitated environment where light is effected by gravity. But in an environment where there is no gravity that is created by a sun, blackhole or other celestial body but where energy still exists could be the explanation behind why we can see ghosts in a waking dream. In the ethereal world beyond our gravitated environment energy would function differently much the same as dark matter or dark energy does. We know its there but it is very difficult to test for. Dark Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
permeates all of space. This means that is flows through everything. Even our bodies. Perhaps when conditions the correct conditions exist and Dark Energy, which is not effected by gravity because it was present before gravity existed, could have carried the seeds of our life in its energy because we come from the Universe and prior to the Big Bang would have been part of the creation process.

Once a person passes on the energy in their body remains and slowly dissipates over several weeks. Perhaps the residual energy is collected within Dark Energy that since it is not effected by gravity but does in fact hold the key to our seeds prior to Big Bang that were released after the Big Bang retains something of our persona where the spirit inside of the Dark Energy stream is able to use Dark Energy to coalesce into a form that we can see in our dreams and waking dreams as well as appearing as orbs and the occasional black post in photographs that appear shortly after a loved one has passed on. Proving that E=MC^2 did not exist prior to the Big Bang is a big boost to religious philosophies relating to the afterlife. If Dark Energy travels faster than the speed of light then it would be able to carry our 'soul' away from other forms of energy that would otherwise devour it and never allow it to roam the Universe to find its way into a living seed of energy again. Tarantula 11..how do you copy over? We're moving to underground location 12 Delta Alpha October....ghost emitters are emplaced and active. Copy T11.

 

Your cut and paste is showing again. You really need to start crediting the original material.

 

Yeah! Otherwise Tarantula 11 might sue for infringement.

 

Its obvious that you are Canonist's who only believe what other popular and well known and excepted theorist have written about.

Because the extent of your comments prove that you are not able to logically deduce or even grasp the theoretical application outside of what is already known and is simply switched around to make it sound like something new.

 

Now back to interesting and thought provoking stimulations.

In the Universe prior to the Big Bang where E=MC^2 is not present we have a laser emitter. If we fired the laser without E=MC^2 being present what would happen to the laser?

Theoretical's welcome.

The pot is boiling for duck stew as well.

 

All you are doing is copy/pasting ramblings you find on blogs or other questionable websites. Giving no real discussion, adding nothing to the posts and accusing anyone who disagrees with the typical "you're all sheep maaaan" style non-rebut.

Please post something substantial, in your own words, back it up with some form of evidence or credible backing and stop using such a accustory attitude when it doesn't go your way.

 

If we assume that the pre-Big Bang universe is the inflation field, I'm pretty sure the answer is that the physics of that domain don't allow for the existence of a laser emitter.

 

I can't find any fault with copying and pasting. When someone comes up with a unknown or unpopular view or theory everyone here always asks for a source (which in case of genuinely own thoughts is a little difficult ). So copying and pasting is almost the safest way to avoid mistakes. I agree, though, that the source should be named.


Dryson, just to be sure I correctly reply your question: do photons already exist in your pre-bang universe?

If they do, your laser beam's photons would either miss or hit other photons and in the latter case cause the involved photons to veer off-course. The narrowly focused beam would gradually split up and dissolve into a spray. Basically like these two coins* :


If photons don't exist yet, nothing will happen since the laser beam does consist of photons which - as we just defined - don't exist yet.

(no source citing since these are my own ideas. Theory #1 is based on what I learned at school about 2-dimensional collisions, pic is taken from wikipedia.de entry for "elastischer Stoß" / elastic collision)


* two coins being used to illustrate my theory is totally coincidential and no pun was intended concerning the above mentioned inflation field!
(Still it's kinda funny )

 

The reason why sources are being asked is because of the word Canon. if it doesn't come from someone else then supposedly no one here at Trek BBS is intelligent to have a scientific theory whose source is basically a Hypothesis or a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.


Dryson, just to be sure I correctly reply your question: do photons already exist in your pre-bang universe?

I'm not certain if photons would be able to exist in a pre-big bang universe as the gravity that is present that helps in their existence would not be present.

But let's say that a laser was fired in a non gravitational environment such as the Universe prior to the Big Bang and was able to exist.

What would happen to the laser photons? Without gravity present would the photons instantly disperse in all directions or would the photons remain at the same constant velocity of light speed and create an energetic reaction with particles that are present prior to the Big Bang at the speed of light?

Maybe this is how the Big Bang occurred. Energy from a speed of light source location escapes the gravitational confines of its universe and for a brief moment is able to survive without gravity then comes into contact with a particle that is able to add a lot of mass to the photon in some manner or another that is able to interact with the photon as if it were a regular atom such as a hydrogen or helium atom.

We have recorded a lot of what takes place inside of our gravitated universe but we do not know what happens to particles and atoms outside of our gravitated universe.