0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, we know that there is no free lunch in our Universe.
As the total energy/mass in a single proton is very similar to Hydrogen atom then why by achieving 100 times more energy we can't get 100 times more energetic atoms from that pair process?
What do you mean by some?
, the photons don't get extra energy do to that activity.
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Could it be that it is below 0.0...1%?
Hence somehow it seems that the whole BBT is based on a very low chance:
Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?Do you confirm that for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom?Therefore, for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom, for any star there must be anti-star that is made out of Anti hydrogen, for any BH there must be Anti-BH and for any Galaxy there must be Anti-galaxy.So, do you confirm that for the same Universe that we see there must be Anti-universe that we don't see?
What about the Anti-dark energy and Anti-dark matter?
However, in this case, we would need to explain why the matter had been separated from the antimatter and moved to absolutely different observable universe.
Sorry - we all know.
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?
Here is the opening of the paper showing the details."Proton Antiproton Pair Production inTwo Photon CollisionsHiroshi HamasakiInstitute of Applied Physics,University of TsukubaTsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan(VENUS collaboration)
The process is called "spallation"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Nuclear_spallation
Well, the observation is that we can produce proton antiproton pairs.So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:46:45So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pairIt does.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:46:45So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair
Observations should drive science. Theories are often developed to solve mysteries that arise in science. One of those mysteries is the domination of matter over anti-matter.
Just because anti-matter can be produced under certain conditions does not mean accepted science is wrong
It is an observation that needs to be explained.
Various theories have been developed to explain this.
All this is distinctly different to the questions arising from the conditions after the big bang.
At the moment of the start of the universe, there is no "yesterday"So it figures that, at that moment, the symmetry is broken.And that means that Noether's theorem can not be applied.And that, in turn, means that we can create energy and/ or mass.It's a "one time only deal", but at that instant, we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe, in fact.I feel sorry for you that you do not understand the beauty of that explanation.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:52:16Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?Very high.Because there area huge number of them, in a very small space.
My hypothesis said that it would have been pure chance. All the particles moved in just the right way to miss each other and move to different regions. It's absurdly improbable, but that doesn't matter in an infinite universe. Anything with a probability above 0 must occur in an infinite universe. By the way, I'm not advocating that the hypothesis I posted was correct. I was only using it as an example of an untested hypothesis
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:25:41Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiprotonAny such process would have to consistent with conservation laws.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:25:41Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
Well, I also read that article:
1. How they have overcome the proton/antiproton annihilation process.
3. How they have forced the antiproton to move directly to that "assumed" detector?
So, theoretically, if a proton/antiproton had been created why they could potentially start a chain reaction of nuclear fission?
Do we have an idea what might be the outcome of a collision between antimatter to real matter?
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?
How they could take so high risk in that experiment?
Sorry - that article is just nonsense.
I'm quite sure that no one from our "real science community" tried to do it again.
However, our science community are using that kind of nonsense just to prove that Proton/antiproton can be created from Photon.
The idea that we can produce Proton+Abtiproton in a lab doesn't mean that the Universe would use exactly the same scenario.
If it would, then we had to see equal no. of protons and antiprotons.
If we don't see it, then it is a solid prove that the universe works differently from that lab.
If it does, then why our scientists claim that it took the early universe 300MY to get the first hydrogen atom?
How can you call this poor experiment as "Observation"?
This is incorrect (
The real observation tells us that there is no antimatter/antiproton in our Universe.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
The Universe tells us that there is no Antimatter in it.We can accept this observation or we can reject it.
This brief story represents our current approach to real science.
We don't see antimatter while based on our theory it must be there. If still this moment we have no real answer why it is missing, then how could you claim that it doesn't mean that our theory is wrong?.
Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?
So, if the Universe tells us that it doesn't accept the BBT, why don't we look for better theory?
Why this key contradiction in our observation is not good enough to eliminate the BBT?
This is your theory
Prove it please by real science.
Is it real?
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
Well, it seems that we always prefer the "chance" that supports the BBT.
Now when it comes to the idea that the Antimatter shouldn't collide with the existing matter in our current universe then the chance for that is very low - in order to support other request of the BBT.
Please chose the chance as you wish – but please don't change it according to your request..
So, please let's try to find a process that consistent with conservation laws which could work and explain how particles could be created without antiparticle.
Therefore, each quark could be created by that pair particle process.
However, as there is no antiparticle in our Universe, it tells us that the pair process isn't applicable for the proton creation process.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?You might want to rethink that while taking conservation of energy into consideration.
The electron, in particle accelerator data, was found to be a single particle composed of negative charge and mass.
The finish up question is, why is the electron always in motion? My guess is this is connected to its unity of magnetism, negative charge, mass.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.The universe is still expanding, this does not stop cars hitting each other.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?Because the theory is based on maths, and the maths can be (and has been) prove to be correct. So the theory must be correct.So the antimatter must be somewhere.Since the idea that "it's somewhere else" isn't actually a problem, that's one reasonable basis to move forward. (there are other possible explanations).
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?
Well, I hope that you agree that if we set proton at absolutely close to antiproton (or collide with each other), they both should be annihilated and therefore there must be lost of mass/energy.
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?
So, even if the idea of creating proton/antiproton by gamma collision is correct,
how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?
It two cars are moving directly to each other at 100 Km/h while we expand the space between them at 1000K/h, how they collide with each other?
hen they have to explain the source of this separation.
You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.
Why are we turning this into yet another thread where Dave attacks the Big Bang theory via misunderstandings? Let's keep the posts about the original topic, please.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?Luck.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?
Chance.Luck.Coincidence.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?Yes, but not muchAbout 0.000000000298484 Joules.And you thought this was going to destroy a city.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?
In research published in 2011 by the American Astronomical Society positrons were discovered originating above thunderstorm clouds; positrons are produced in gamma-ray flashes created by electrons accelerated by strong electric fields in the clouds.[25]
Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass? This is why we need to look at extreme gravity induced phases, that current particle accelerators cannot yet simulate.
Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass?
However, there is real natural accelerator that somehow our scientists have neglected.This accelerator is called the accretion disc. We clearly see it around our SMBH.I hope that you agree that the gravity force over there is extremely high.Please be aware that the plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.All they see is flares from time to time, while they fully confirm that those flares are due to the Ultra electromagnetic over there.Therefore, I it is very clear to me that all the matter in the accretion disc had been created by the SMBH EM + Gravity force.Please be aware that the accretion disc is actually a ring.The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?I claim that that our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.This particle generator creates only matter (No antimatter)Therefore, if we could understand how that particle generator really works, we could understand why there is only matter in our real universe.
Please don't hijack this thread with your own ideas. Please keep that in the original thread you made about this.
In the meantime, the accumulated heat energy of that process should be:10^12 * 0.000000000298484 Joules.
Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles?