[qazibasit (OP)]

i dont believe in big bang what i believe is that before the creation of the universe there was no mass and just. light light of extremely high intensity which was converted into the particles and that particles were the electrons and protons and they then converted into hydrogen and helium and then was the origin of this universe and the energy which was produced by the nuclear reaction draws it and cause the expanding of the universe.

[DoctorBeaver]

So, before the creation of the universe, where was this light situated? Prior to the creation of the universe there was nowhere for the light to be.

*backs off & waits for a proper physicist to take over*

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away

[gsmollin]

If you replace the phrase "before the creation of the universe" with "at the creation of the universe" you essentially have mapped out the correct sequence of events for the first 300,000 years, skipping a lot of detail of course.

[chimera]

Struck me too, and he's forgetting about the little detail that light of extremely high intensity does create its own gravity. Light CAN knock you over, strangely.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

[qazibasit (OP)]

ya light itself doesnt have gravity but after becomming particles it does have and at the time of creation of the universe the whole space was filled with light now is it possible.

[chimera]

Does light have mass? - good story:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

[DoctorBeaver]

Rob, so does that mean photons are a bit like Schrodinger's poor cat? They exist in 2 states at the same time? They have and don't have mass at the same time? [xx(]

"Curiouser & curiouser", said Alice

[chimera]

Not really, as far as I can fathom it, it is more like the total being larger than sum of the parts, in the sense of emergent group behaviour, under certain conditions.

All gravity/mass problems are essentially energy conservation problems. The author of my previous link tries to explain that mass and energy should be seen as different, when it comes to separating kinetic energy from the rest.

Ever since Pauli came up with the neutrino to explain the energy leak during beta-decay, to save the conservation of energy principle, I feel we've been barking up the wrong tree somehow. Neutrinos are impossibly abundant (100 billion or so go through an area the size of your thumbnail every second), massless, or nearly so, and in effect totally harmless, nearly not there. You could send a neutrino at full throttle through a lightyear of lead, and it would have a very good chance of it not even noticing.

Remember, this explanation is to supersede 'phlogiston' or 'caloric', that laughable exotic unfalsifiable crap of yesteryears fame our ancestors came up with. Mmm. A child would probably see more traits in common than differences...

Anyway, this dead end in our true understanding of matter and (kinds of) energy is what makes it impossible to truly solve mass, inertia and gravity-related problems.

I think stuff coming from John Baez's site is quite trustworthy, and dependable, and if this is the present state of physics, it does not paint a very cheerful picture, to put it mildly.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)