The value of e at the origin of our universe

newtonian · Sep 15, 2005

e=mc^2 What the value of e when no m, matter or mass, existed at the origin of our universe?

bbrock · Sep 15, 2005

You are trying to cross over into territory beyond our ability to understand -- at this time. At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no matter, only energy. To know how much energy was involved would require knowing how much energy exists today plus all matter that exists. The Universe consists of about 4% visible matter, 23% dark matter and 73% dark energy. We Think! But how much mass is tied up in the 4% visible matter? There is much we don't know or understand. The Big Bang was quite a Big Bang. Clear Skies Bill

igorsboss · Sep 15, 2005

Like my tag line says...

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

stevehw33 - Thank you for some solid numbers. On the mass of the universe, I had previously, in older threads, cited Sir Arthur Eddington's older calculation to be about 10^80 amu (atomic mass units). An atomic mass unit is, if I remember correctly, about the mass of the hydrogen atom which is one proton and one electron - hence similar to the mass of one proton since the electron has so much less mass. Please correct me if I am wrong. For simplicity, perhaps we could start with a lower limit for the value of e considering just the approximate known mass of the observed universe, and then adding the other less known factors, such as the known values for observed forms of energy in our universe. So, what unit should we use for e - would that be easy to come to a consensus on? I.e.: e= 10^80 amu x c^2 = what in what unit? 34596 x 10^86 in what unit? And how does this compare the known value of the current observed total energy of the universe - e.g. what percentage of our universe is matter vs. energy using the energy equivalent for the matter? It's always best to start simple! Then later we could adjust the number to include dark energy, dark matter, and estimates for beyond our visibility horizon.

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

the equation doesn't require the existence of the matter to be valid. Only that there is a value for C, which may (or may not) have had the same value it is now. The idea of a non-constant C over time is being entertained as an idea to explain inflation. Without matter, that only means there is no matter to convert to energy. There was energy, so you could write it as E/c^2=m...and thus show how the energy turned into matter (as it eventually did). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - yes, of course divide both sides of the equation by c^2. Resisting the tangent on c not being constant, and also why e=mc^2, I am still interested in the value of e at the origin. Can you address that question further? Thank you for your informative posts, btw.

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

It's all there in the equation. If physics is valid everywhere, at all times, then e=mc^2 applies then as it does now. Especially since e=mc^2 is merely an equation describing the conversion between two states. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - I meant, like: how many joules was the value of e at the origin? As another poster made an estimate for the numerical estimate in this unit of energy. Do you have some ball-park estimate you can post?

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - Not to ignore the profound significance of a non-constant value for c, btw!!!! If c increases, what happens to e???? And where is the cause (causal mechanism) for a change in c?

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

If "c" changes, the amount of energy stored in matter is different. It's just a conversion factor. As for how much energy was included in the big bang...I don't know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Saiph - Yes, I realized the former. Do you realize that seems to violate the law of conservation of matter and energy? I.e. - If the amount of matter and outside energy remains the same, and c increases, then energy increases overall in the system. To avoid a violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy, wouldn't outside input of energy be required? On the latter - I don't know either - that's why I am asking the question!

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

if it's a quantum event...no, not really. It can be spontaneous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Saiph - Please explain. Are you referring to the appearace and disappearance of virtual particles out of "empty' space? I.e. - please specify what type of quantum event you have in mind.

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

basically the virtual particle thing. Specifically heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is possible, though extremely, monumentally, nearly infinitely unlikely to occur on such a scale. But, energy conservation isn't as strick at subatomic levels as it should be (not an absolute)...what's going on.. I don't know, and I believe people are working on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 27, 2005

Igorsboss - OK, say the 10^80 amu estimate for mass of the universe is only 4% of the actual mass. That would mean the mass of the universe is 25 x 10^80 amu. Now all we need to do is add in the amount of energy in our universe at present. And, of course, we must assume our universe is a closed system (thermodynamically, not expansion rate) since the creation (aka big bang). OK, anyone want to venture a ball park estimate for the total present energy in our universe at this time? And an important tangent: Is the mass of our universe currently decreasing because of matter being converted to energy (as in stars)? And is the latter decrease in mass contributing to acceleration of expansion?

bonepile · Sep 28, 2005

Something it would be good to keep in mind here is that just because we think of energy as a fundamental construct doesn't mean it really is. Quantum physics and relativity are in essence behavioral models that describe the way the universe is observed to work. The universe prior to the big bang is clearly a serious boundary case under which our models might very well have not applied.

newtonian · Sep 28, 2005

Bonepile - Have I hit on a reason for your user name? I.e. - are we going to have to throw established principles and laws of physics on the bonepile as we try to figure out how and why our universe was created? You may be correct - however, I prefer to try to determine the cause of the origin of our universe on the basis of observed principles and laws. Here are a few I feel are well established: 1. Cause and effect. Nothing happens without a cause going all the way back to the first cause (or First Cause). Related to this is that nothing violates causality. 2. The law of conservation of matter and energy. Related to this is e=mc^2, as in thread theme. 3. Time is the medium through which cause and effect flow. Therefore, nothing can be caused without time. Related to this is my theory of primordial time, the time during which our universe's space-time was created. 4. The laws of thermodynamics, including entropy. Related to this is another type of entropy indicating any system tending towards the most stable state. As in a house returning to the dust, etc. Also, I and others have noted our universe operates according to fine tuned laws and properties that allow for life as we know it to exist. But I digress. I am most interested, in this thread, in mathematically calculating e=mc^2 at the origin of the universe. An estimate of the temperature at the big bang would help immensely. I believe the tempertature of the mass-energy equivalent of our universe expressed in some appropriate unit would lead to the value of e in e=mc^2 at the origin of our universe. BTW - I do not disagree with you. I feel there are many universes and, like some other astronomers, some of these universes may have different laws and properties from our own universe. For one obvious example, the heaven wh

bonepile · Sep 29, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Bonepile - Have I hit on a reason for your user name? I.e. - are we going to have to throw established principles and laws of physics on the bonepile as we try to figure out how and why our universe was created?<hr /></blockquote> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Careful, don't let stevehw33 hear you. He would no doubt take it a bit further... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You may be correct - however, I prefer to try to determine the cause of the origin of our universe on the basis of observed principles and laws.<hr /></blockquote>Fair enough. Might I suggest then that the value of e could be 42? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> On a serious note, assuming an invariant c and conservation of energy, we could calculate e0 = mc^2 + eq + ee, where m is the summation of all the mass in the known universe (including dark matter), eq is the summation of all zero-point energy dictated by quantum physics, and ee is the summation of all non-zero-point electromagnetic energy, from infrared to cosmic radiation. I'm not sure what that comes out to.

jatslo · Sep 29, 2005

newtonian · Sep 30, 2005

jatslo - I take it you believe our universe was created from nothing? And, therefore, that the law of conservation of matter and energy was violated? Your post was extremely concise, btw!

newtonian · Sep 30, 2005

Bonepile - would that be 42 x 10^80 joules???? Could you elaborate on what you mean by: all zero-point energy dictated by quantum physics?

newtonian · Oct 17, 2005

You all - still looking for additional educated guesses on the value of e at the origin of our universe. Related to this, in e=mc^2 - wouldn't that formula change if different units were used? Clearly, one must use an equivalent unit of energy, mass and time! What might these be? I assume we are not using circular reasoning!

The value of e at the origin of our universe

newtonian

Guest

bbrock

Guest

igorsboss

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

bonepile

Guest

newtonian

Guest

bonepile

Guest

jatslo

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page