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

Thus, this mass–energy relation states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared.

With this in mind given that we know that the constant of the speed of light is governed by two celestials bodies, a sun in which a light photon is created in of which the initial speed of light develops and then the black hole of which is the only known celestial body capable of trapping the light photon and not allowing it to escape.

Since both of these celestial bodies would not be present prior to the Big Bang how would the governance of mass-energy relation be formulated?

Since light photons existed only after the Big Bang occurred E=MC^2 would not have been present until afterwards.

 

Science is not a consensus, and the Big Bang has been falsified so many times I've lost count. Any model that must be patched with each new observation should start alarm bells ringing, but the consensus continues to claim that Big Bang perfectly explains the universe around us.

As for Einstein's Relativity, it was excellent for the time, but based on certain unproved assumptions. See the Extinction Shift Principle (which has nothing to do with dinosaurs).

Huh? You've said all this before, and I have no idea where it's coming from. Main sequence stars and black holes are not the poles between which the "potential" of photons run.

 

See, this is where your understanding of science is wrong. No one claims that the big bang "perfectly" explains things. Only that it is the best model we've come up with to explain our observations. The fact that it has been patched is actually a strength that science is working to improve that model as more information becomes available as opposed to doggedly holding on to some theory that does not change with new observations.

 

See, this is where your understanding of "falsified" is wrong.

 

No, for something to be falsifiable means it can be demonstrated as false.

For your edification: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html

In other words, you're wrong.

 

I'll make it easy for you J. When galaxies and the universe overall fail to move as expected, astronomers "patch" the model with dark matter and dark energy which are unfalsifiable. That's not science. Then there's Guth's "inflation," another patch that violates the accepted physics that the rest of the model is based on.

Halton Arp catalogs hundreds of low redshift galaxies to high redshift quasars—which falsifies the main tent pole of the Big Bang. Mainstream astronomers reply by trying to brush the observations under the rug, make ridiculous counter arguments (the quasar is showing through a hole in the foreground galaxy, that stream of connecting matter is only an image artifact), and blacklist Arp from getting any more telescope and computer time.

Got anything more than dictionary definitions?

 

I've got more than a dictionary definition: an article examining two intrinsic redshift models and finding no evidence to support those hypotheses. The Big Bang model isn't perfect, but it doesn't look like Arp's model holds up at all.

 

but wasn't the question whether the equation was valid *before* the Big Bang? So, let's for a moment forget about the bang or not bang question.
I believe we all agree that before the current universe existed there must have either been nothing (and then a big bang that created matter and energy as we know it) or some other form of universe (which then somehow changed into the one we currently have; possibly by a big bang or possibly not).

Assuming there was nothing, then there weren't any photons either, nor any energy or mass. So Einstein's equation would not have been valid.
Assuming there was a different kind of universe, there might have been light and photons and there surely were mass and energy. But would the rules of physics of our current universe necessarily have applied to that other one? If they did, it would have been practically identical with ours. Then why did it collapse or change in the first place?
Mustn't we therefore assume that it was very different from ours, possibly instable, and therefore crashed, causing the big bang? If it was that different, then it would be logical to assume that it had different laws of physics or at least a different structure. In both cases it'd be unlikely that Einstein's equation would have been valid there.

 

In order for a photon to exist a sun would have to be present to create the photon and the velocity of light speed.
Now we know from science that there is really nothing unless that nothing is an absolute of space itself where space will not effect upon and energetic release of energy nor be effected upon by an energetic release of energy.
You probably more than anyone Rhubarbodendron understand what I am referring to.
Now lets imagine another type of Universe where the gravity that is present in our Universe is not present because suns and black holes are not present to effect such a velocity.
In order for the Big Bang to occur there would still need to be particles in the Universe. Based on my understand of how the Higgs-Boson is theorized to exist that are mechanics within the Higgs-Boson that add particles to particles passing through the Higgs-Boson that then give the particle the ability to become an atom and therefore collide together to create a Big Bang.
No one knows where the Higgs-Boson or the sub-particles come from but are most likely part of the sub-space arena that when the Higgs-Boson and the particle come into contact with each other the sub-particle is created much like an electrical arc would arc between two pieces of metal where the sub-particle then attaches itself to the particle.
Light photons are not present during this time but there is some sort of gravitational interaction taking place that could be considered Higgs-Boson Gravity that would need to have a new formula based on "mass–energy relation states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of ____ ?" It wouldn't be the speed of light because light hasn't been created yet. So could we therefore assume and in input values up to 10x the speed of light into E=MC^2 because Einstein's formula deals with proportionality that is relative to a Universe where light has already been created and such gravity involved in the light photons creation has also been created but would not have been present prior to a Big Bang therefore assuming that we can in fact square the velocity of mass-energy faster than the speed of light to obtain a particle velocity that would have existed prior to the Big Bang.

 

That makes sense (though admittedly I had to read it 3 times to get it ). Only I disagree on one detail: in my opinion a sun isn't absolutely necessary to have photons. Photons can also be the result of a collision of atoms or of an electrone jumping fom a high-energy orbit into a low-energy one. There are even biophotons that are being emitted by living organisms (even by humans).

Oh, and (rather belatedly) welcome to the board! =)

 

Biophotons...

 

Link, I suppose?
Gimme sec. It was the topic of my MS thesis, 25 years ago. Rather revolutionary back then, pretty commonplace nowadays I'm afraid. My old teacher Prof Popp still works on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz-Albert_Popp


Yep, there's a wiki entry on how the Biophotons work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton
Don't confuse them with bioluminescence, for example of deep sea fish or fireflies. It's a totally different mechanism. The relation is about the same as that between a nuclear power plant's heat and your body's heat. Similar effect but very different cause and source.
For further info on the topic I recommend the articles cited in Prof Popp's bio. I haven't worked on the topic in 21 years and my data is somewhat outdated now, I'm afraid. (My theory back then was that in plants it's used for communications. Afaik the theory has been partially confirmed. Recent publications suggest that there's both an optical and a chemical component in plant speech. The chemical part has been very nicely explained by Sir David Attenborough in a TV miniseries on plants that was broadcasted around 2007; sorry, I don't know the English title; possibly something along the lines of "the secret lives of plants".)

 

Then probably you can't count beyond zero. But maths is hard, eh.

 

Not true. I can create photons with my flashlight.

We live in that kind now. The gravity present in our Universe is not dependent on suns and black holes.

This statement doesn't make sense.

eh?

gravity is needed to create photons?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Seriously, you keep mentioning the Big Bang but I don't think you're using the term correctly. You seem to perceive it as some sort of reaction that's the result of particles colliding. That's not what is proposed by the so-called "Big Bang Theory", more properly known as the Expanding Universe Model.

 

Hold on, now, let him make it easy for you. You haven't given him a chance to make it easy for you yet.

 

All radiation is photons. The only difference is wavelength/energy. The whole term "biophoton" makes me shiver. Are photons emitted by my meal "foodphotons", and those emitted by my oven "oven photons"?

 

Well, obviously. And you should be aware that "LEDphotons" are much cooler than "LightBulbphotons". (Literally and measurably cooler, that is!)

My own bioSilvercrestphotons are the epitome of cool, of course. They're silver.

What do you imagine bioRhubarbphotons are like?

 

Alpha radiation is a helium nucleus (2 protons, 2 neutrons).

Beta radiation is electrons created by the decay of a neutron into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino.

Gamma radiation is photons, in the gamma portion of the EM spectrum

 

My biophotons are illegal in 43 of 50 U.S. states, and at least one territory.

 

Finally!! Someone else who read Seeing Red! Awesome!