I Cosmic Inflation Explained: Constant Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the equation C = sqrt(E/M), suggesting a relationship between energy and mass in the universe, particularly during the Big Bang. It posits that if there was significantly less mass at that time, the speed of light (C) could be higher, potentially explaining cosmic inflation. The conversation references E=mc^2, emphasizing that c^2 serves merely as a unit conversion factor. However, the thread violates forum rules regarding personal theories, leading to its closure. The importance of adhering to established scientific principles is highlighted in the discussion.
JonathanMFreedman
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
C = sqrt(E/M)...this would suppose the ratio of the amount of energy vs. the amount of mass in the universe. If not, why not. If there is no mass, just energy, or much less mass at the moment of the hypothetical Big Bang, then, there C would be significantly higher, thus explaining cosmic inflation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the context of ##E=mc^2##, the ##c^2## is nothing more than a unit conversion factor between units of energy and units of mass. Don't try to read more into it than that.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
You might want to take a look at the PF Rules on personal theories. You can't just toss one out and expect us to explain "why not".
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and malawi_glenn
The initial post does indeed violate the forum rule about personal theories, so we are closing the thread here.

@Ibix’s point about ##c^2## being just a unit conversion factor is well taken.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, topsquark and Ibix

Thread 'Assumptions of Hawking-Penrose 1970 Singularity Theorem'

I've been thinking some more about the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem and was wondering if you could help me gain a better understanding of the assumptions they made when they wrote it, in 1970. In Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time (chapter 3, page 25) he writes.... In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Energy-to-angular momentum ratio in EM v. gravity quadrupole radiation
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
A How to show spin ##= \pm 2/\omega## for a circ-polarized gravity wave
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
B Does dark energy or cosmic inflation explain flatness?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
B Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
B C as Energy Conversion Constant: Conservation Law Explained
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Comparing Clock Rates in Accelerated vs Constant Velocity Frames
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
I What Are the Limits of the Universe According to Cosmologists?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
I Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
I Negative Mass and Hawking Radiation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
I Why Must Pure Force Depend on 4-Velocity?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K