[Bored chemist]

So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, there's  third option.
The rule is not always strictly obeyed.
So, we have two choices.
either
(1) the rule is strictly obeyed- in which case matter can not exist because it would always be annihilated.
Or
(2) The rule is not strictly followed.
And we know that option 1 is wrong, because we are here- matter exists.
So we know that option 2 must be true.

Actually, I fully agree with this explanation.

So, I'm ready to accept all of the following explanation about the starting point of the BBT:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
"During this phase, big bang theorists believe, matter and energy were inseparable. The four primary forces of the universe were also a united force."
"At t = 1 x 10-43 seconds, the universe was incredibly small, dense and hot. This homogenous area of the universe spanned a region of only 1 x 10-33 centimeters (3.9 x 10-34 inches)."
However, that moment of time must be considered as exotic moment.
Therefore, as I have stated:

Even if we agree that at some exotic situation, some particles could survive, it is clear that 99.9...9 had been eliminated.
So, if you insist to use the idea of mass creation based on a Big bang/small bang, you/we have to show how that 0.000..1 particles could set the whole Universe

Hence, even if we accept option 2, it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.
Therefore at the maximal, the survival particles might represent 0.000...01 from the total particles/antiparticles which had been created.
I would assume that at the maximal those particles can't get more than the total particles in a single moon or star.
Hence, If we wish to believe that that those 0.00...01 survival particles could represent the whole matter in our entire Universe, then the energy at the first moment of the BBT should be 1*10^10...00 times the total energy/mass in our current entire Universe.
This is absolutely not realistic.
Therefore, do you agree that even if we all confirm your option 2, it can't lead us to the current universe that we see?
If you think differently, please let me know what should be the ratio of the survival particles with regards to all the created particles?

[Bored chemist]

it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.

You just made that up. It's a fairy story.
You have no actual reason to believe that the fraction is 

0.000...01

Do you?
It might- in those circumstances be 0.5 and so you don't have a sensible, evidence based argument.


And there's still the fact that if the fraction is very small, then it's also very small for any other theory.
So it's just as bad for your idea as it is for the BBT.
Did you not see that?

[Bored chemist]

So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.

You just made that up. It's a fairy story.
You have no actual reason to believe that the fraction is 

0.000...01

Do you?
It might- in those circumstances be 0.5 and so you don't have a sensible, evidence based argument.

Well, you had confirmed that based on physics law/rule the total number of the particles should be absolutely identical to the Number of the antiparticles:

It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.

Therefore, based on that rule the chance that there will be more particles than antiparticles is ZERO.
Not one to 10^10 and not one to 10^10...000
Zero is Zero.
However, you had convinced me that as we are here, there is a chance that due to some process which isn't full clear to us there might be a possibility that we can get more particles than antiparticles. So, that understanding is not based on any physics law, it is just a wishful thinking as we are already here.
So, I have agreed that maybe some particles had survived although the physics rule tells us that the chance for that is zero.
Now you take my understanding that some minor particles could survive and convert it to a chance of 0.5.

This is totally ridicules and unrealistic.
There is no way to bypass physics law/rule and if it happens the chance for that is virtually zero which means less than one to 10^10...00.
Therefore, the 0.5 which you had offered is absolutely not realistic.

By the way, just few hours ago I have watched a TV program about this issue.
In that program Lawrence Krauss have stated that the chance for that is less than one to one billion.
I have tried to find a confirmation for that and found the following:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/a-universe-from-nothing/
Also, we ("we" here being people, planets, galaxies, stars, and everything material) are the result of a slight asymmetry in the early Universe in which there was just a touch more matter than antimatter

So, it is very clear that just a touch more matter than antimatter can't be 0.5.
therefore, if we use the ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Kraus had used in the TV program, then the Big bang had to start with an energy which is higher by one billion times the total energy in out entire Universe.

Sorry,
It's the time for you and for all our scientists to understand that something might come out of nothing but surly not everything.
Therefore, the assumption that by a single bang we could get all the requested survival particles for our entire Universe is absolutely not realistic.
However as you won't get this message then please show the article which could confirm you understanding/hope for 0.5.

[Bored chemist]

Well, you had confirmed that based on physics law/rule the total number of the particles should be absolutely identical to the Number of the antiparticles:

Except that it's not.
We are here.

There is no point discussing that rule any more because we know that it is not reliable.

Now you take my understanding that some minor particles could survive and convert it to a chance of 0.5

And I would still like you to either prove that it isn't (in the circumstances that applied at the start of the universe)
Or accept that it might be 0.5 or some other fraction.

So, it is very clear that just a touch more matter than antimatter can't be 0.5.
therefore, if we use the ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Kraus had used in the TV program, then the Big bang had to start with an energy which is higher by one billion times the total energy in out entire Universe.

OK, you seem to like the idea that it's 1 in a billion.
But then you fail to understand what that means.
If all but 1 particle in a billion got annihilated, then that means that there should be two billion photons for each particle.

But we don't know what energy those photons have. (Because we can't be sure what the particles in the early universe were.)
They may have been radio frequency or infrared.
And so they might not have carried much energy at all.
So the energy at the outset might have been enough to produce the universe as we see it, and a little left over.

It really would be better if you learned some physics.

Also, try answering this

So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is no point discussing that rule any more because we know that it is not reliable.

Well, as a person that raise the flag of science, you know that physics rules are always reliable.
So there is no way to bypass physics law/rule.
However, I still agree with you that we are here:

We are here.

So, it is very clear to our scientists that if the Universe have to start by ONLY physics rule, it would never start and we were not here.
We might never know the exact physical process for the creation out of nothing.
We might never know how the first particle or the first mass in the whole empty Universe had been created.
We really don't know what is the source of energy that had started the whole process of the Big Bang.
We don't know why there should be more matter than antimatter
We even don't know for sure how that new created matter which were mass less have got their mass. That by itself is very complicated process. Some claim that it is due to Higgis Boson but as I have tried to have better understanding I found myself more confused.
So, in order to make it short - based on our current knowledge, we really don't know how the Universe had started out of Nothing.
So, if the Physics can't solve the mystery, it almost seems obvious that a divan force is involved in that first moment of creation.
Therefore, why can't we agree with the Christianity, all the other abrahamic religious and actually with any other religious that without the involvement of God we were not here?
Why the science community can't tell us clearly that a finger of God starts that first creation process and eventually gave us life?
Why do we insist so badly to understand that first moment, while we know that there is no way to bypass the physics law and we even don't have a clue about the real source of that first energy and how something could be created out of nothing?
Why the science community can't understand that God gave us in the first moment of creation the requested energy/matter/mass/forces... that were vital to start the physical activity which is needed for us to be here?
From this moment we have to use real Physics rules/laws to develop the theory for our Universe as the BBT or any other theory (as theory D).

[Bored chemist]

Well, as a person that raise the flag of science, you know that physics rules are always reliable.

Bollocks.
Everybody learns Ohm's law at school.
But a light bulb does not obey Ohm's law.

We know that Newton's laws of motion are broken at high speeds.

So a real scientist knows that the "laws" have a limited range of applicability.

It really would be better if you learned some science.
That way you could avoid making mistakes like that
And you wouldn't have wasted time typing the rest of your post.
I, on the other hand, know enough about science to realise there is no point reading the rest of your post because it is based on a misunderstanding of science.

.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So a real scientist knows that the "laws" have a limited range of applicability.

That is correct with any law that gives up some math components as space time or relativity.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that the relativity breaks down at extremely low space or extremely long distance.
However, there is nothing to break in the pair production process.
It will always generates matter and antimatter at the same quantity.
Therefore, the assumption of more matter should be set in the garbage.

So, Let's summarize why the BBT is totally unrealistic:

1. More matter than antimatter
The number of the created particles should be identical to the no of the antiparticles in the process of the pair production.
This is real physics. There is no other alternative. Therefore, after the annihilated process not even a single particle would survive. Hence, there are no particles to be used for our Universe. Hence, the BBT is not relevant.

2. The energy for the Big Bang
Until now our scientists couldn't show the real source for the BBT energy. Even if we agree that some particles survive in a ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Krauss had stated, then this first energy should carry at least one billion more energy than the total energy in our whole Universe. This is absolutely ridicules that all of that energy which equivalent for the energy of one Billion universes as ours would came out of nothing.

3. Magnetic field for the Pair production process
As I have already proved by real articles, the pair production works ONLY under magnetic field. Therefore, Even if you get for free the whole unrealistic energy that is equal to one billion of the total energy in our universe, not even a single particle pair would be created without the transformation of magnetic field. Our scientists do not claim for magnetic field, therefore, the theory that some matter/antimatter could be created by the big bang is also none realistic.

4. Singularity
Our scientists claim for singularity at the first moment of the Big Bang. However, when it comes to a NH or a SMBH, they are very sure that those BH would stay at their singularity shape forever and ever. Hence, there is no way for a matter in the singularity space to break outwards. If that is correct, then this should be applicable also for the BBT first moment. If some energy or even almost infinite energy) came out of nothing in a singularity point and set matter, that matter wouldn't be able to break out of that singularity never and ever.
Therefore, at the maximum, that Big Bang could create a BH or a SSSSupper massive BH.

5. Space expansion
Our scientists have totally failed to explain why there was no space before the bang and why only after the bang the space had started to expand. This must be supported by a specific physics law. How could we even assume that there was no space at the early time? Are we in a position to claim that there was no space before the Bang? do we have any way to prove it? If so, please show the articles and the math that supports the idea that there was no space before the Bang. That idea by itself contradicts the basic element of physics Time & space. If you take out the existence of time and space, then you actually kill the physics.

6. Inflation -
This is one of the biggest mysteries in the BBT. Even if we accept all the unrealistic five points that I had offered, then why suddenly the early Universe will expand at so high velocity (billion times the speed of light). We know there is no way to set a process without external energy. So, where the energy for the inflation came from. Even if we get that unrealistic energy for the inflation, why suddenly it stopped from billion times the speed of light to the speed of light or less? The momentum law would tell us that if something is move at a fixed velocity, it won't reduce its velocity without external force. So, what kind of force or energy could stop the inflation?
The idea of the inflation came by Alan Guth just in order to keep the BBT alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Without the inflation the BBT is just useless:
"Guth's first step to developing his theory of inflation occurred at Cornell in 1978, when he attended a lecture by Robert Dicke about the flatness problem of the universe.[9] Dicke explained how the flatness problem showed that something significant was missing from the Big Bang theory at the time. The fate of the universe depended on its density. If the density of the universe was large enough, it would collapse into a singularity, and if the actual density of the matter in the cosmos was lower than the critical density, the universe would increasingly get much bigger."

Actually, the following explanation proves why the BBT and the inflation idea are totally irrelevant:
"Two weeks later, Guth heard colleagues discussing something called the horizon problem. The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken. The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

Sorry - even if you wish to keep the life of the BBT, there is no way to accelerate the expansion in space (which by itself is not realistic) by billion times the speed of light and then stop it just because it is not needed any more. The Inflation is clearly unrealistic story.

The following message is also very interesting:
"Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed"
So, In order to set the inflation Alen Knew that it  must start with less matter. At that time our scientists assume that our universe was very compact. Even so, Allen knew that  the inflation can't carry all of that matter at billion times the speed of light. So, he hoped for less matter.
Now that we know that the universe is much bigger than our early estimation, we have to go back to the inflation idea and revivify if this idea is still applicable.

7. Infinite Universe
ONLY the idea of INFINITE universe could give a perfect explanation for the flat Universe!!!

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?

We don't need that toy Universe.
Theory D meets perfectly all the aspects of our real universe without any need for any fiction story as expansion. inflation, dark matter dark energy and so on...

Please answer the following:

Why the science community can't understand that God gave us in the first moment of creation the requested energy/matter/mass/forces... that were vital to start the physical activity which is needed for us to be here?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, the assumption of more matter should be set in the garbage.

It isn't an "assumption" it is an observation.
You are suggesting that we put a fact in the garbage.
And that's not science, is it?

Again, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because it seemed to be derived from your misunderstanding.

[Bored chemist]

We don't need that toy Universe.

Yes, we do.
It is just that you don't understand it, or you understand it but don't want to admit it.
Please answer the question.

.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Kryptid]

If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

Well, you have already explained your toy Universe:

Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.
Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.
When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).

And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.

I have already gave you full answer why your toy universe is unrealistic.
Please read « Reply #1023 on: 13/10/2020 16:47:37 »
You didn't like my answers, so let's focus on the main issues:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37
How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?

There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.
There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.
But the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR.

I totally reject that explanation due to the following:
 

hot plasmas are opaque.

We see today similar hot plasma at the accretion disc. That plasma has very powerful light radiation.
So, if hot plasma is opaque and we clearly see its radiation from so far away, then the hot plasma in the opaque early universe also should have high radiation. Therefore, the assumption that "the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of  the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR" is just unrealistic.
Actually, based on the BBT, after the bang the matter was mass less. The meaning of that matter is radiation. So, based on the BBT process, the radiation was there from the first moment.
Don't forget that due to the inflation, the Universe had been expanded at velocity of Billions times the speed of light. So, technically, the light at the center of the bang couldn't get to the edge of that early universe.
However, after the inflation, the Universe expansion dropped dramatically. Actually, based on the formula it should be much less than the speed of light. Therefore, the light at the edge of the Universe was faster than the expansion. Hence, it had to bang with that edge.
So, your following message might not be fully incorrect:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37
Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back

No
Because the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out.
There's obviously nothing for it to bounce off so there's obviously no way it would come back to us.

The assumption that "the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out might be incorrect as we clearly know that the formula of the expansion is not based on the expansion of light.
If that was the case, than you have to invent other cosmological constant.
That shows how the BBT works. When you need a cosmological constant to explain one issue you set its value, while for other issue you don't even think about it.
Therefore, as you claim that the expansion was/is always at the speed of light - then please prove it by the chosen constant value (if you can..).
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37
How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?

There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.
There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.

So, you confirm that there was radiation before and after that T1 time.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37
So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.

It's perfectly realistic, but it's clear that you don't understand it.

The idea that we get that ring of bell just from that specific time (T1) of the Universe is absolutely not realistic as even at the first moment after the bang there was already radiation in the Universe.
Now, can you please explain how at any location in the entire universe that same "ring of bell" from that early universe (t1) gets CONSTANTLY forever and ever.
Is there any possibility that at some point in the whole universe there will be different radiation?
Why the radiation after or before that time can't get to any place in the Universe. Why Only from that moment, to any location and forever and ever?

[Bored chemist]

You didn't like my answers, so let's focus on the main issues:

The main issue was that you were wrong.

Actually, based on the BBT, after the bang the matter was mass less. The meaning of that matter is radiation. So, based on the BBT process, the radiation was there from the first moment.

And, as the universe cooled, it formed matter- a plasma- which was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation, cooling it down to form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.

That's why we don't see that primordial radiation.

Did you think you somehow had a point?

The assumption that "the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out might be incorrect as we clearly know that the formula of the expansion is not based on the expansion of light.
If that was the case, than you have to invent other cosmological constant.
That shows how the BBT works. When you need a cosmological constant to explain one issue you set its value, while for other issue you don't even think about it.
Therefore, as you claim that the expansion was/is always at the speed of light - then please prove it by the chosen constant value (if you can..).

It doesn't matter.
The light emitted by the opaque plasma , just as it cooled enough to become transparent would set out in every direction, from everywhere.
That's why it's still reaching us.

So, you confirm that there was radiation before and after that T1 time.

Nobody ever disputed it.

The idea that we get that ring of bell just from that specific time (T1) of the Universe is absolutely not realistic as even at the first moment after the bang there was already radiation in the Universe.

Which got stopped in its tracks as matter formed.

Now, can you please explain how at any location in the entire universe that same "ring of bell" from that early universe (t1) gets CONSTANTLY forever and ever.

It's everywhere because the BB happened "everywhere".
It's not constant forever.
If we had been looking at the CMBR a long time ago it would have been hotter.
But we were not in a position to study it until about 70 years ago.
70 years is a very small fraction of the age of the universe.

Is there any possibility that at some point in the whole universe there will be different radiation?

It's not a matter of "possibly".
It is inevitable.
Nobody ever said otherwise.

Why the radiation after or before that time can't get to any place in the Universe.

Before that moment, it couldn't get to us because the universe was opaque.
After that time it is getting to us; that's where the CMBR comes from.

Why Only from that moment, to any location and forever and ever?

|Because that's the moment when the universe became transparent.
The big bang happened in all locations simultaneously.
It isn't "forever" because it keeps getting colder.


Now, I have repeatedly actually answered your question.

Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Bored chemist]

If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?

I might go for that.
Especially since he just asked the same questions 2 or 3 times in one post.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's everywhere because the BB happened "everywhere".

How can you think that is happened everywhere while our scientists claim that the BBT starts from singularity?
So how the BBT singularity could suddenly be converted to "everywhere"?
If it didn't start at singularity, then how the energy could start from a non singularity? 

And, as the universe cooled, it formed matter- a plasma- which was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation, cooling it down to form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.

That's why we don't see that primordial radiation.

How do we know that?
1. How do we know that as the Universe cooled it formed matter? Did we set any simulation or verifications? Did we ever try to cool mass less matter in order to convert it to real mass as plasma?
Actually, plasma is the name that is given for the hotter gas in the Universe which is located at the SMBH accretion disc. Now you use that specific name for a cooler gas. Why is it?
2. How do we know that the plasma was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation? Did we set any simulation or verifications??
3. How do we know that the cooling plasma could form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.
Again - did we set any simulation or verifications for that BBR?
Is there any possibility for quarks to be converted to real hydrogen just by cooling the temp?

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

Why do you ask the same question again and again while you have clearly got full answer?

If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?

I have answered all his questions, but he insist to ask it again.
So, if we discuss about fair, then why don't you think that answers should be given for the following:

So, Let's summarize why the BBT is totally unrealistic:

1. More matter than antimatter
The number of the created particles should be identical to the no of the antiparticles in the process of the pair production.
This is real physics. There is no other alternative. Therefore, after the annihilated process not even a single particle would survive. Hence, there are no particles to be used for our Universe. Hence, the BBT is not relevant.

2. The energy for the Big Bang
Until now our scientists couldn't show the real source for the BBT energy. Even if we agree that some particles survive in a ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Krauss had stated, then this first energy should carry at least one billion more energy than the total energy in our whole Universe. This is absolutely ridicules that all of that energy which equivalent for the energy of one Billion universes as ours would came out of nothing.

3. Magnetic field for the Pair production process
As I have already proved by real articles, the pair production works ONLY under magnetic field. Therefore, Even if you get for free the whole unrealistic energy that is equal to one billion of the total energy in our universe, not even a single particle pair would be created without the transformation of magnetic field. Our scientists do not claim for magnetic field, therefore, the theory that some matter/antimatter could be created by the big bang is also none realistic.

4. Singularity
Our scientists claim for singularity at the first moment of the Big Bang. However, when it comes to a NH or a SMBH, they are very sure that those BH would stay at their singularity shape forever and ever. Hence, there is no way for a matter in the singularity space to break outwards. If that is correct, then this should be applicable also for the BBT first moment. If some energy or even almost infinite energy) came out of nothing in a singularity point and set matter, that matter wouldn't be able to break out of that singularity never and ever.
Therefore, at the maximum, that Big Bang could create a BH or a SSSSupper massive BH.

5. Space expansion
Our scientists have totally failed to explain why there was no space before the bang and why only after the bang the space had started to expand. This must be supported by a specific physics law. How could we even assume that there was no space at the early time? Are we in a position to claim that there was no space before the Bang? do we have any way to prove it? If so, please show the articles and the math that supports the idea that there was no space before the Bang. That idea by itself contradicts the basic element of physics Time & space. If you take out the existence of time and space, then you actually kill the physics.

6. Inflation -
This is one of the biggest mysteries in the BBT. Even if we accept all the unrealistic five points that I had offered, then why suddenly the early Universe will expand at so high velocity (billion times the speed of light). We know there is no way to set a process without external energy. So, where the energy for the inflation came from. Even if we get that unrealistic energy for the inflation, why suddenly it stopped from billion times the speed of light to the speed of light or less? The momentum law would tell us that if something is move at a fixed velocity, it won't reduce its velocity without external force. So, what kind of force or energy could stop the inflation?
The idea of the inflation came by Alan Guth just in order to keep the BBT alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Without the inflation the BBT is just useless:
"Guth's first step to developing his theory of inflation occurred at Cornell in 1978, when he attended a lecture by Robert Dicke about the flatness problem of the universe.[9] Dicke explained how the flatness problem showed that something significant was missing from the Big Bang theory at the time. The fate of the universe depended on its density. If the density of the universe was large enough, it would collapse into a singularity, and if the actual density of the matter in the cosmos was lower than the critical density, the universe would increasingly get much bigger."

Actually, the following explanation proves why the BBT and the inflation idea are totally irrelevant:
"Two weeks later, Guth heard colleagues discussing something called the horizon problem. The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken. The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

Sorry - even if you wish to keep the life of the BBT, there is no way to accelerate the expansion in space (which by itself is not realistic) by billion times the speed of light and then stop it just because it is not needed any more. The Inflation is clearly unrealistic story.

The following message is also very interesting:
"Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed"
So, In order to set the inflation Alen Knew that it must start with less matter. At that time our scientists assume that our universe was very compact. Even so, Allen knew that  the inflation can't carry all of that matter at billion times the speed of light. So, he hoped for less matter.
Now that we know that the universe is much bigger than our early estimation, we have to go back to the inflation idea and revivify if this idea is still applicable

Actually, even at this moment I really can't understand why do you all have so high commitment for the BBT?
The BBT isn't just about science. It must be something high above science.
So, what is there in the BBT that you all wish to protect as it was a holly crown?

[Bored chemist]

I have answered all his questions, but he insist to ask it again.

No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).

Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

Now, I should  refuse to answer any of your questions until you answer that one of mine (with a yes or a no),.
But this mistake of yours is so massive that I really feel compelled to fix it, just in case it misleads anyone else.

How can you think that is happened everywhere while our scientists claim that the BBT starts from singularity?

Did they say it finished as one?
Or did they say that it became everything?
So, all the matter in you was present at the big bang (it may have changed form)
All the matter in the moon was present at the BB,
All the matter in the furthest stars was present at the BB.
Everything , everywhere was present at the big bang.
And therefore the BB happened everywhere.
You really should find out about it before you try to criticise it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).

In order to answer your question with yes or no, I need to have better understand on your "Toy" universe.
Your introduction about the "Toy" universe was as follow:

You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory about how the actual Universe cme to be like it is and this "toy" model that I have been asking you about for over a week (and which you have been ignoring)

Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.
Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.
When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).

And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.

What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?

I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.
Either you accept that it looks like what we see or you explain what it would look like and why it would be different.

Remember, this is a purely hypothetical universe, so there is no option for saying anything about its age.
I told you it's 14 billion years old.
I told you that it expanded nd so on.
And, since it's my "model" universe those facts are true.
What would you see in the night sky?

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

The issue is very simple:
You can set any starting points in your "Toy" Universe as you wish.
You can start it at any age/size as you wish and with any feature.
You can even claim that your Toy universe had started just one billion years ago while it already carried the BBR including, the Milky way galaxy & the solar system.
You can also claim that the energy for that toy Universe came out of nothing or direct deliver from the Bible.
However, once you set the starting point, then from this moment real science should take care.

So, please answer the following:
1. Size - What was the size of that Universe when it was started?
As you claim for "everywhere" instead of singularity point, then what was the size of that everywhere? If it is still singularity, then how singularity could be everywhere?
2. Energy - What is the source of energy for that Toy Universe?
How energy could come out of nowhere to everywhere and even set that everywhere to ultra high temp?
3. Temp -
What was the temp of the Universe at the first infinite moment of creation?

3. Matter
How a toy Universe with High temp (without any matter) could transform that temp to real mass just by cooling the temp.
Please explain how in real science a single particle could be created just with high temp (without EM).
This is something that you have to prove.
If you tell me that this toy had started full with plasma then this is OK for me.
However, if you claim that it started without any matter, then you have to prove the process of converting pure Temp/energy to plasma only by cooling the temp by real science - not story.
Please set the physics law that could support this imagination.
I'm not asking for the Math. Only simple physics law or simulation

4. Expansion - Do you confirm that without the expansion/inflation, the toy Universe would stay everywhere at that ultra high temp without cooling itself?
Do you also agree that without the expansion, the Universe acts as some singularity-everywhere Oven.
If so, I still can't understand why as you increase the size of that "Oven" you decrease the temp?
You have stated that toy Universe while there was no space outside. So, there is nothing outside that can cool that Universe.
So, please set the conservation energy law in order to prove that a Toy Universe without anything outside would cool itself as it expands.

5. Real Universe size/shape
What is the current real Universe size and shape?
Can you answer this question - Yes Or NO?
If you can, please set the answer.
If you don't know even its current size - Today, how do you know what was its size/shape/temp 14 BY ago?
Sorry - if you don't know EXACTLY the current size/shape of our Universe, then you don't know anything about our Universe!!!  In this case, please set immediately your toy universe and the BBT in the garbage.

I should  refuse to answer any of your questions until you answer that one of mine (with a yes or a no),.

It is a big bang shame for you and for the science comunity that you try to tell us what was the size of the universe 14 BY ago, while you clearly don't know its current real size/shape.
There is no meaning to answer yes or no, while all of you don't know even what is the current size of the Universe!

[Bored chemist]

If you want answers to the questions you posed, learn some science. It's not my job to teach you.
But, there's only one person I can ask about your opinion on this; so I will keep asking you.

No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).

Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

It is really amazing.
You ask a question about your toy universe without giving basic information about its size and shape.
Not for its moment of creation and not for its current size.

It is similar as I will ask you the Following: If I will turn right do I get to LA (without giving any info about my current position)?
Yes or no?

If you want to get real answer to your toy universe, it is your obligation to offer the requested information.

However, unfortunately you can't offer this information as you clearly don't know.

Therefore, you are asking this question just to show that you know something while your knowledge about that universe is absolutely poor.

If you want answers to the questions you posed, learn some science.

Do you mean that I should learn science from someone who doesn't know even the size of its toy Universe?

It's not my job to teach you.

Sure, how can you teach while you don't know?

But, there's only one person I can ask about your opinion on this; so I will keep asking you.

I have golden advice for you:
As long as you don't know - don't ask questions as people will know that you really don't know.