Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

[river]

DaveC426913 said: ↑
Since there was a epoch of the universe where it was only electromagnetic radiation, this is obviously not true.

False. If your assertion were true, matter-antimatter imbalance could never happen, and planets, stars, galaxies etc. could never exist. Nothing in QED allows a matter-antimatter asymmetry.
The very early universe is believed to have been dominated by a quark-gluon plasma, and an as yet unknown BSM interaction operated there to yield an eventual one baryon per ~ 10^10 photons. Leptons (mostly electrons and neutrinos) and DM make up additional portions whose estimated numerical values can easily be found with a web search.

Disagree

Sub-atomic protons existed as well , which allows electromagnetic energy to exist .

 

[river]

river said: ↑
And the reason that any electromagnetic radiation exists is because of physical matter. Without physical matter , electromagnetic radiation would not exist .

Since there was a epoch of the universe where it was only electromagnetic radiation, this is obviously not true.

Disagree

Electromagnetic energy forms need a physical form from which to emminate from . How could electromagnetic energy form and emminate without any physical form ? Dave

 

[DaveC426913]

Electromagnetic energy forms need a physical form from which to emminate from . How could electromagnetic energy form and emminate without any physical form ? Dave

Electromagnetic energy did not form from matter.
It's the other way around.
Matter formed from electromagnetic energy.
EMR is more fundamental to the universe than matter.

Disagree
Sub-atomic protons existed as well , which allows electromagnetic energy to exist .

Subatomic particles did not form until well into the inflationary period.

 

[river]

Well, depends on what you mean. Or what River means.

Even if there was a complete absence of matter between Earth and Moon, the spacetime there would still have a curvature because of the nearby masses.

What is it curving , physically ?

 

[river]

Electromagnetic energy did not form from matter.
It's the other way around.
Matter formed from electromagnetic energy.
EMR is more fundamental to the universe than matter.

Then how did electromagnetic form ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Then how did electromagnetic form ?

Well, that's the big question. There are several theories as to what symmetries the forces had before inflation. They generally agree that gravity peeled away first, leaving the electronuclear force (of the grand Unified Theory). Then the strong nuclear force peeled away, leaving the electroweak force. Finally, the weak nuclear force peeled away leaving the electromagnetic force.

That's the 4 fundamental forces we see today.

 

[river]

Well, that's the big question. There are several theories as to what symmetries the forces had before inflation. They generally agree that gravity peeled away first, leaving the electronuclear force (of the grand Unified Theory). Then the strong nuclear force peeled away, leaving the electroweak force. Finally, the weak nuclear force peeled away leaving the electromagnetic force.

That's the 4 fundamental forces we see today.

All of which have in essence a physical form basis .

 

[geordief]

Well, that's the big question. There are several theories as to what symmetries the forces had before inflation. They generally agree that gravity peeled away first, leaving the electronuclear force (of the grand Unified Theory). Then the strong nuclear force peeled away, leaving the electroweak force. Finally, the weak nuclear force peeled away leaving the electromagnetic force.

That's the 4 fundamental forces we see today.

So is inflation supposed to have taken place after these 4(?) forces separated out ,followed again by expansion?

Is it generally supposed that gravity was a force like the others given that I keep being told it is synonymous with spacetime (and so ,apparently a geometry rather than a "force") ?

It is still (hopefully) lumped in with the other 3 known forces at the very "outset" (if there was an "outset")

 

[river]

So is inflation supposed to have taken place after these 4(?) forces separated out ,followed again by expansion?

Is it generally supposed that gravity was a force like the others given that I keep being told it is synonymous with spacetime (and so ,apparently a geometry rather than a "force") ?

It is still (hopefully) lumped in with the other 3 known forces at the very "outset" (if there was an "outset")

There is at the very " outset " , all forms of energy and matter existed at the same moment . From the micro to the macro , in no particular order of existence .

 

[DaveC426913]

All of which have in essence a physical form basis .

"Physical form" is a kind of ambiguous term. It was way, way too hot for protons, let alone atoms. It was even too hot for quarks.

 

[DaveC426913]

So is inflation supposed to have taken place after these 4(?) forces separated out ,followed again by expansion?

This might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology

Is it generally supposed that gravity was a force like the others given that I keep being told it is synonymous with spacetime (and so ,apparently a geometry rather than a "force") ?

Force and curvature are models. We made the models to describe what we think is happening.
Saying it's a force or a curvature doesn't really mean much.

It is still (hopefully) lumped in with the other 3 known forces at the very "outset" (if there was an "outset")

Yes. Gravity broke away first.

In the early part of the universe, they were all symmetrical, but as the universe cooled and expanding, they broke the symmetry, one by one.

Think of a small bed sheet on a large mattress. The bedsheet is wrapped around all corners, but the mattress is bowed inward and under tension.

The bedsheet is symmetrical, but unstable.

As the mattress settles flat, first one corner then another pops off the mattress. The bed sheet is now stable, but no longer symmetrical. This is our current universe, and why the forces all look different, even though they're fundamentally part of the same symmetry.

 

[Q-reeus]

Disagree

Sub-atomic protons existed as well , which allows electromagnetic energy to exist .

You have completely misunderstood my #20 post. Not unexpected. Also not unexpected that the poster I qouted in #20 has avoided acknowledging his error.

 

[Q-reeus]

Electromagnetic energy did not form from matter.
It's the other way around.
Matter formed from electromagnetic energy.
EMR is more fundamental to the universe than matter.

Again false. In both pre-inflationary and post-inflationary eras, matter and force carriers necessarily appeared together - as a package. In each successive phase change. Your statement contradicts the Wiki article you linked to in #31. And your bed sheet analogy there is far too crude to be of real use.

Subatomic particles did not form until well into the inflationary period.

Check your own Wiki link in #31 again. They formed after inflation ended, according to standard picture.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Disagree

Sub-atomic protons existed as well , which allows electromagnetic energy to exist .

You have completely misunderstood my #20 post. Not unexpected. Also not unexpected that the poster I qouted in #20 has avoided acknowledging his error.

Fine , then explain in more detail your meaning in #20 . What did I misunderstand ?

 

[river]

New
↑
Electromagnetic energy did not form from matter.
It's the other way around.
Matter formed from electromagnetic energy.
EMR is more fundamental to the universe than matter.

Again false. In both pre-inflationary and post-inflationary eras, matter and force carriers necessarily appeared together - as a package. In each successive phase change. Your statement contradicts the Wiki article you linked to in #31. And your bed sheet analogy there is far too crude to be of real use.

Check your own Wiki link in #31 again. They formed after inflation ended, according to standard picture.

What theory of pre-inflationary and post-post-inflationary are you referring to ?

 

[river]

What theory of pre-inflationary and post-post-inflationary are you referring to ?

Because for me your saying that all forms of energy and matter existed at the same moment . It sounds alot like my thinking , that all forms of matter and energy , have always existed together , not separate from each in time .

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, so river is engaged in a two-way conversation with himself.

 

[river]

OK, so river is engaged in a two-way conversation with himself.

Just asking questions Dave ; and replying to Q-reeus responses to you and me . Whats the problem ? I see none .

 

[Q-reeus]

Fine , then explain in more detail your meaning in #20 . What did I misunderstand ?

It's self-explanatory. Similarly for your query in #35. Why not just study the Wikipedia article linked to in #31? Do that and hopefully you should have no further questions.
Another one: http://physicsanduniverse.com/standard-model-of-the-big-bang-theory/

 

[river]

It's self-explanatory. Similarly for your query in #35. Why not just study the Wikipedia article linked to in #31? Do that and hopefully you should have no further questions.
Another one: http://physicsanduniverse.com/standard-model-of-the-big-bang-theory/

The Universe does not evolve .

The Universe de-involves into nothing . It is non-sustainable . In the standard -model -of-the-big-bang-theory .