Big Bang and Other Musings

[Cosvis1]

!

Moderator Note

Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54440-how-to-create-energy/

A very interesting topic. According to physical science, energy must be eternal, it must have always existed and will always exist. The basic form of energy is a photon, an electro-magnetic radiation travelling at the speed of light; it is a quantum particle with a quantity of energy that is a Plank constant. All physical matter and different forms of energies are constituted by quantum particles. The fact that energy in its basic form, is eternal is also show by Einstein relativity theory which holds for the principle of "time dilation" which holds that for any object travelling at the speed of light, time is zero. Thus time as we ordinarily experience it, that is, the phenomena of past, present and future, only begins when there exist matter that travel slower than the speed of light. Thus when pure energy was first converted into sub atomic particles, atoms, and all forms of matter, it was the beginning of ordinary time, our time, time of the universe. Edited March 8, 2011 by swansont
add modnote

[michel123456]

A very interesting topic. According to physical science, energy must be eternal, it must have always existed and will always exist. The basic form of energy is a photon, an electro-magnetic radiation travelling at the speed of light; it is a quantum particle with a quantity of energy that is a Plank constant. All physical matter and different forms of energies are constituted by quantum particles. The fact that energy in its basic form, is eternal is also show by Einstein relativity theory which holds for the principle of "time dilation" which holds that for any object travelling at the speed of light, time is zero. Thus time as we ordinarily experience it, that is, the phenomena of past, present and future, only begins when there exist matter that travel slower than the speed of light. Thus when pure energy was first converted into sub atomic particles, atoms, and all forms of matter, it was the beginning of ordinary time, our time, time of the universe.

 

Interesting comment.

 

1.

Thus time as we ordinarily experience it, that is, the phenomena of past, present and future, only begins when there exist matter (...)

The " that travel slower than the speed of light.' is unnecessary. Time begins when there exist matter. I agree 100%. It should be a hint (Big Ben sized) on the nature of mass & gravity.

 

2.

Thus when pure energy was first converted into sub atomic particles, atoms, and all forms of matter, it was the beginning of ordinary time, our time, time of the universe.

 

People here know my position on this. I suppose the OP question should be then "how to create pure energy?".

[Cosvis1]

Conservation of energy is a consequence of the time invariance of physical law. As long as physics isn't changing, energy must be conserved.

 

Thus, it could be said, that the physical laws that govern the universe are also eternal, just as pure energy from which all matter is formed. If the basic physical laws that govern the universe are altered than there would be chaos and we would have a different universe. Physical science may not ask the question how is energy created or formed that would rather be a logical or a meta physical question which would be beyond the field of physical science. Physical science would accept as first principle, the fact, that pure energy and the physical laws that govern it, existed before the beginning of ordinary time.

[lemur]

Thus, it could be said, that the physical laws that govern the universe are also eternal, just as pure energy from which all matter is formed. If the basic physical laws that govern the universe are altered than there would be chaos and we would have a different universe. Physical science may not ask the question how is energy created or formed that would rather be a logical or a meta physical question which would be beyond the field of physical science. Physical science would accept as first principle, the fact, that pure energy and the physical laws that govern it, existed before the beginning of ordinary time.

Which came first, the electron or the photon?

 

 

 

[swansont]

Thus, it could be said, that the physical laws that govern the universe are also eternal, just as pure energy from which all matter is formed. If the basic physical laws that govern the universe are altered than there would be chaos and we would have a different universe. Physical science may not ask the question how is energy created or formed that would rather be a logical or a meta physical question which would be beyond the field of physical science. Physical science would accept as first principle, the fact, that pure energy and the physical laws that govern it, existed before the beginning of ordinary time.

 

I don't know that you can extrapolate this symmetry back before the big bang. And there's always a possibility of other symmetry breaking at some energy, since we've seen it for other conservation laws. I don''t know the status of that.

[Cosvis1]

I don't know that you can extrapolate this symmetry back before the big bang. And there's always a possibility of other symmetry breaking at some energy, since we've seen it for other conservation laws. I don''t know the status of that.

Even the Big Bang theory speculates the existence of energy or it must postulate that it created energy from nothing. Just as we accept that basic principles in Mathematics like one plus one makes two, are eternal, so, it could be argued that the basic laws that goverrn the evolutionary process of the universe are eternal and the task of science is to discover them. Thus also, it could be argued that energy is eternal, but it certainly is not infinite, because darkness is the abscence of light and we certainly experience the darkness of night, every day.

[Mr Skeptic]

Even the Big Bang theory speculates the existence of energy or it must postulate that it created energy from nothing.

 

I've not seen any convincing evidence that the total energy of the universe is non-zero (when including potential energy as negative energy as is usual).

[Cosvis1]

Which came first, the electron or the photon?

 

 

 

The Photons of cause existed before any electrons were formed because the elctron consists of many photons. A photon itself, consists of many quanta particles of energy, depending on the number of frequency of the photon: the energy of a photon E = fh, energy (E) is equal to the frequency (f) of a photon times a Plank constant (h). An electron has a quantity of rest mass (M) and we know that E = Mc^2, thus the mass of an electron is M = fh/c^2.

 

I've not seen any convincing evidence that the total energy of the universe is non-zero (when including potential energy as negative energy as is usual).

Is it not the same problem that divides light and darkness? Darkness is the abscence of light; darkness has a capacity to accept light and its darkness is lessened as the light increases. Thus potential energy has the capacity to be potentialised, to be filled with positive energy which may either be gravitaional or kinetic energy. Potentional energy is nothing more or less than the abscence of positive energy. One cannot have potential energy when energy does not exist. The energy of the uninverse had to existed before the universe itself, thus it must have been non-zero.

[michel123456]

(...)

Is it not the same problem that divides light and darkness? Darkness is the abscence of light; darkness has a capacity to accept light and its darkness is lessened as the light increases.(...)

 

Darkness is a phenomena, it is not something that properly "exist". At any point of the universe, you can receive light: light is everywhere. And a whole bunch of other radiations. You cannot go in some place and suddenly not observe the stars around you (except closed in some box together with a cat, or closing your eyes). The Universe is an ocean of light. The fact is that the only light we can perceive is that one who enter our eyes. We cannot see the vast majority of light that pass over our heads. That's what we call darkness.

 

So, darkness is not absence of light, darkness is anything that we cannot observe.

[Cosvis1]

Darkness is a phenomena, it is not something that properly "exist". At any point of the universe, you can receive light: light is everywhere. And a whole bunch of other radiations. You cannot go in some place and suddenly not observe the stars around you (except closed in some box together with a cat, or closing your eyes). The Universe is an ocean of light. The fact is that the only light we can perceive is that one who enter our eyes. We cannot see the vast majority of light that pass over our heads. That's what we call darkness.

 

So, darkness is not absence of light, darkness is anything that we cannot observe.

 

It is so true that darkness is a phenomena but if there were more light there would be less darkness, thus we can deduce that light is not infinite.

[michel123456]

It is so true that darkness is a phenomena but if there were more light there would be less darkness, thus we can deduce that light is not infinite.

 

If you are talking about Olber's paradox I have an inclination to accept the fractal star distribution explanation.

Edited March 1, 2011 by michel123456

[Cosvis1]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And as for the big bang, I think it is highly credible given what string theory tells us about our reality. A concentrated vibrating mass would eventual diffuse, much like Brownian Motion.

 

A string theory of fundamental quanta particles would be of quite a different dimension than the vibrating mass described by the Brownian Motion. In the Brownian motion it describes the motion of actual particles that have rest masses. Whereas, in a quantum theory, the particles consist of pure energy particles which have no rest masses.

 

A string theory of fundamental quanta particles of energy or photons, could be interpreted to consist of two fundamental energy strings, one being gravitational and the other kinetic. These are two equal but opposite energies or strings in a quantum particle that gives it, its constancy, and equilibrium. The quanta particles, since they do not have any rest masses and since they travel at a constant speed of light, do not fall under Einstein relativity laws, but are quite unique, forming their own dimension.

See: cosvis1.blogspot.com , CHAPTER III. THE FIFTH DIMENSION.

[khaled]

Time is not really a dimension, we made it a dimension to study objects over temporal intervals

 

.. there is no object with no time, it's like pausing the reality ...

 

when something occur then another thing occur you can't reverse them in time order,

 

time motion is continues, its flow divers between different objects, some humans

can feel its flow slower than others ...

[michel123456]

(...)A string theory of fundamental quanta particles of energy or photons, could be interpreted to consist of two fundamental energy strings, one being gravitational and the other kinetic. These are two equal but opposite energies or strings in a quantum particle that gives it, its constancy, and equilibrium. The quanta particles, since they do not have any rest masses and since they travel at a constant speed of light, do not fall under Einstein relativity laws, but are quite unique, forming their own dimension.

See: cosvis1.blogspot.com , CHAPTER III. THE FIFTH DIMENSION.

(emphasis mine)

Interesting comment.

 

If (IF) gravity is an opposite kinetic energy, if and if, it means gravity is another form of kinetic energy, of opposite value. It means that what we experience as "rest mass" for example is not "at rest" but under the impulse of some "opposite" kinetic energy.

It is not far from the equivalence principle that states that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference." (italic from wiki Equivalence principle)

 

"in an accelerated frame of reference"...

[Cosvis1]

(emphasis mine)

Interesting comment.

 

If (IF) gravity is an opposite kinetic energy, if and if, it means gravity is another form of kinetic energy, of opposite value. It means that what we experience as "rest mass" for example is not "at rest" but under the impulse of some "opposite" kinetic energy.

It is not far from the equivalence principle that states that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference." (italic from wiki Equivalence principle)

 

"in an accelerated frame of reference"...

 

Gravitational energy is different from kinetic energy because the gravitational energy is potential and depends on the mass of the object that attracts other massive objects. Kinetic energy is positive and opposite to the potential gravitational energy and it depends on the the mass and the speed of the moving object. In a quantum particle the gravitational and kinetic masses are equivalent or the same, however, since the quantum particle travels at a constant speed of light, it is not govern by relativity laws but rather by Newtonian laws since it exist in a constant reference dimension. When the gravitational force is balanced by the kinetic force of the object, its movement is symmetric or constant like the force the gravitational and kinetic forces acting on the moon travelling around the earth. In a quantum particle, since its gravitational mass and its kinetic mass are equivalent, and its forces are equal and opposite, its movement is constant, it makes it a stable and constant particle.

 

Time is not really a dimension, we made it a dimension to study objects over temporal intervals

 

.. there is no object with no time, it's like pausing the reality ...

 

when something occur then another thing occur you can't reverse them in time order,

 

time motion is continues, its flow divers between different objects, some humans

can feel its flow slower than others ...

 

Yes, in our ordinary understanding of time, "there is no object with no time", but their could be different understanding of time. Einstein talks about time dilation which depends on the speed of an object and when an object moves at the speed of light, its time is zero. There could also be an eternal time for instance the mathematical and logical principles, are eternal, they were always right and will always be correct.

[michel123456]

(...) In a quantum particle the gravitational and kinetic masses are equivalent or the same, however, since the quantum particle travels at a constant speed of light, it is not govern by relativity laws but rather by Newtonian laws since it exist in a constant reference dimension. (...) In a quantum particle, since its gravitational mass and its kinetic mass are equivalent, and its forces are equal and opposite, its movement is constant, it makes it a stable and constant particle.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Why "stable and constant particle"? One should expect that when opposite energies cancel each other, the result is null. Not something stable & constant, but zero.

Do I miss something?

[khaled]

Yes, in our ordinary understanding of time, "there is no object with no time", but their could be different understanding of time. Einstein talks about time dilation which depends on the speed of an object and when an object moves at the speed of light, its time is zero. There could also be an eternal time for instance the mathematical and logical principles, are eternal, they were always right and will always be correct.

 

Light = Photons, Photons Speed [math]\ne \infty[/math]

 

Photon [math]i[/math] is in Position [math](x_1,y_1,z_1)[/math] at Time [math]t_1[/math]

 

Photon [math]i[/math] is in Position [math](x_2,y_2,z_2)[/math] at Time [math]t_2[/math]

 

I guess what you mean by "its time is zero" is: Photon's Time Flow = 0.0

 

Based on that, Photons are Static (doesn't change with time passing)

 

But, note that moving Photons crash on objects losing its motion energy .. Also, note that

Photons are converted into Thermal Energy at some cases ...

 

Photons are Dynamic, they change over time .. I think their Time Flow is not Zero,

but it might be relatively Zero to everything else, under the Relativity Theory ...

Edited March 5, 2011 by khaled

[michel123456]

Deleting my own comment after reading it.

Edited March 5, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

A string theory of fundamental quanta particles would be of quite a different dimension than the vibrating mass described by the Brownian Motion. In the Brownian motion it describes the motion of actual particles that have rest masses. Whereas, in a quantum theory, the particles consist of pure energy particles which have no rest masses.

 

A string theory of fundamental quanta particles of energy or photons, could be interpreted to consist of two fundamental energy strings, one being gravitational and the other kinetic. These are two equal but opposite energies or strings in a quantum particle that gives it, its constancy, and equilibrium. The quanta particles, since they do not have any rest masses and since they travel at a constant speed of light, do not fall under Einstein relativity laws, but are quite unique, forming their own dimension.

See: cosvis1.blogspot.com , CHAPTER III. THE FIFTH DIMENSION.

 

!

Moderator Note

Speculation belongs in the speculations forum, and not in the science sections; advertising your pet theories in the science sections is against the rules

[Cosvis1]

(emphasis mine)

 

Why "stable and constant particle"? One should expect that when opposite energies cancel each other, the result is null. Not something stable & constant, but zero.

Do I miss something?

 

 

The forces and energies involved in the movement of the moon around the earth, or the earth around the suns are two distinct forces and energies, one is potential gravitational and the other is kinetic. Theses forces oppose each other and when their exist an equilibrium the moevement of the moon around the earth or the earth around the sun, is stable and constant. Thus similarly, in a quantum particle their exist potential gravitational and a kinetic energies and forces, these are equal and opposite and they do not add up to zero but to a stable quantum particle of energy. It moves at a constant speed because its energy cannot be reduced, because it is the lowest form of energy. When quanta particles or photons are obsorbed by other rest mass particles such as gassess, it increases both its kinetic and gravitational potential energies, hower, the quanta particles themselves remain constant.

[Cosvis1]

Light = Photons, Photons Speed [math]\ne \infty[/math]

 

Based on that, Photons are Static (doesn't change with time passing)

 

But, note that moving Photons crash on objects losing its motion energy .. Also, note that

Photons are converted into Thermal Energy at some cases ...

 

Photons are Dynamic, they change over time .. I think their Time Flow is not Zero,

but it might be relatively Zero to everything else, under the Relativity Theory ...

 

The quanta particles making up the photons are static (they do not change) and because they move at the speed of light, viewed from the fours dimension, their time frame of reference seem to be zero. However, in their own dimension, quanta particles move in a static time frame of reference.

 

Photons crashing into objects might appear to loose their motion, but what happens is that the photons are absorbed by the objects which may be gasses and their quanta energies, gravitational and kinetic, are given to the objects. According to Einstein theory when a rest mass object gains speed it will also gain mass which is both gravitational and kinetic, that are conserved in the quanta particles.

[swansont]

The quanta particles making up the photons are static (they do not change) and because they move at the speed of light, viewed from the fours dimension, their time frame of reference seem to be zero. However, in their own dimension, quanta particles move in a static time frame of reference.

 

Photons crashing into objects might appear to loose their motion, but what happens is that the photons are absorbed by the objects which may be gasses and their quanta energies, gravitational and kinetic, are given to the objects. According to Einstein theory when a rest mass object gains speed it will also gain mass which is both gravitational and kinetic, that are conserved in the quanta particles.

 

!

Moderator Note

I have split off and moved these posts. If you continue to ignore the rules and warnings from the staff, this isn't going to end well

[keelanz]

i just thought time was change, pretty much transferable to energy in a way such that it causes change (and energy limits any perception of the use of time(SOL))

 

your squarks have roots(not squared) but only the same as our own

 

P.S <3 u swanson