[Bored chemist]

Why is it?
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?

Creating bosons is easy- switch the light on.

What is impossible is your claim that you can do it without the BH losing mass.

What's interesting here is that you do not even understand why you are so wrong.
Here's a cartoon.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-11-17
It parodies the stupid boss who thinks that saying "Try identifying the problem and then solving it" is actually helpful.
Obviously, that's absurd, the other guy, Dilbert, already knows that.

But in your case, if you got (and acted on) that instruction from someone, it would actually be progress.

You are literally, beyond parody.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:34:04
Why is it?
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?

Creating bosons is easy- switch the light on.

Thanks
So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.
We actually have a confirmation for that process:
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=fpphys
"By solving the quantum field theoretical version of the Klein-Gordon equation numerically, we study
the creation process for charged boson-antiboson pairs in static electric and magnetic fields. The fields are
perpendicular to each other and spatially localized along the same direction, which permits us to study the crucial
impact of the magnetic field’s spatial extension on dynamics. If its width is comparable to that of the electric field,
we find a magnetically induced Lorentz suppression of the pair-creation process. When the width is increased
such that the created bosons can revisit the interaction region, we find a region of exponential self-amplification
that can be attributed to a spontaneous emissionlike enhancement. If the width is increased further, this trend is
reversed and the magnetic field can even shut off the particle production completely"
Once we all agree that the EM can generate Boson, then the next process is to transform the Boson by the pair particle process to Electron positron or proton antiproton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson."
"Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton"

Therefore, it is feasible to use the Mighty Gravity force + EM power of a SMBH to create Bosons near its event horizon and then transform the boson to pair particles.
Both particles would carry positive mass but opposite charge with each other.
Due to Lorenz force under the SMBH' EM, while one new created particle would fall into the SMBH, the other one would be ejected into the accretion disc.
Due to this process the particles at the inner most accretion disc have Ultra high temp (over 10^9c) and orbit at almost the speed of light.

[Bored chemist]

So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.

of course I do- as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.

As I pointed out, photons are bosons so making them really is as easy as turning on a light.

Did you not know that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:00:15
So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.

of course I do

Thanks for this reconfirmation
You fully agree that a Boson is / could be created by the SMBH EM energy.
I hope that you also agree with the following explanation about Boson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
"Examples of bosons are fundamental particles such as photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons (the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model), the recently discovered Higgs boson, and the hypothetical graviton of quantum gravity. Some composite particles are also bosons, such as mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208;[a] as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs, plasmons, and phonons).[9]:130"

Hence, by definition - Boson is all about mass less particle as Photon or gluons.

Do you accept the following Pair production explanation from our scientists?

Once we all agree that the EM can generate Boson, then the next process is to transform the Boson by the pair particle process to Electron positron or proton antiproton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson."
"Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton"

If so, you should agree that this mass less particle (Boson), under the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + EM could be transformed to real mass particle pair without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else.

Hence,  do we all should agree that the whole process is feasible?
So why do you insist that:
 

as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.

Actually, it seems that when it comes to the BBT you have double standard.
Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the Big bang moment.
Somehow in order to bypass the conservation law, our scientists claim that all the energy of our Entire Universe had been arrived free of charge. Then, this energy had been transformed to real mass particles without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else - as there was no other mass to lose.
So, why only when it comes to the BBT - the energy (that came almost from nothing) have been transformed to real mass without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else?

Do you mean that as the Master of Science you have the power to let the BBT to work against your own laws or those laws have been created in order to keep away any other theory from the BBT - forever and ever?

[Bored chemist]

Hence, by definition - Boson is all about mass less particle as Photon or gluons.

Don't be silly.
Even most of  the examples you quote have mass.

W and Z bosons ...Higgs boson, ...mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208; as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs,...)."

And that's just the ones which have "rest mass"

All particles have relativistic mass.
You may remember that you already lost that argument before.



Please try to pay attention in future.

Actually, it seems that when it comes to the BBT you have double standard.
Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the Big bang moment.

I also already explained this.
The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.


Again, you already lost this argument.
Please don't waste anyone's time by bringing it up again.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

even most of  the examples you quote have mass.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:04:34
W and Z bosons ...Higgs boson, ...mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208; as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs,...)."

And that's just the ones which have "rest mass"

You confirmed that Boson can be created from the SMBH EM energy.
You even stated:

As I pointed out, photons are bosons so making them really is as easy as turning on a light.

So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?
If so and you even confirm that boson could be a mass particle, then why do you claim that :

as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.

Can you please explain where is the problem?

[Bored chemist]

You confirmed that Boson can be created from the SMBH EM energy.

I confirmed that SOME bosons- specifically photons- could be created that way. Doing so would require the loss of mass by whatever created them.

So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.

Why have you written the word "so" in that post?
In English the word is used to show when something happens because of something.

But your statement is meaningless.
Not only is it factually wrong because mass loss IS required,  even if that wasn't a requirement, it wouldn't be because I can generate photons by turning on a torch.

Do you realise that, as the battery goes flat, a torch loses energy and therefore loses mass.
The same mass as is carried by the (relativistic) mass of the photons.

(Please don't waste time telling me that photons are massless; their invariant mas is zero, but their relativistic mass is not zero).

So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?

The question is meaningless; EM energy has mass.
So you are saying we don't need mass, because we can use mass.

Can you please explain where is the problem?

Between your ears.
The problem is a lack of understanding, and a refusal to learn.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:10:34
So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?

The question is meaningless; EM energy has mass.
So you are saying we don't need mass, because we can use mass.

Thanks for this important message!
If you confirm that EM energy has Mass, then we can agree that as the SMBH is transforming some of its EM energy for the creation of bosons, it is actually losing mass in this process.
Do you agree with that? 

[Bored chemist]

The BH transfers some of its mass into hawking radiation.
Eventually, the BH will disappear- which is why they can not create the universe in the antiscientific way you have tried to put forward.
A BH does not have much "EM" energy.
That's why it is fundamentally black.
So that bit of your post makes no sense.

It really would be quicker if you learned some science.

[Bored chemist]

Dave,
imagine a world where you had followed this advice.

Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?

You could have started last November and, thanks to covid an the unprecedented expansion in on-line learning which it brought about, you could have a sound understanding of basic physics by now.

But instead, you just turn up here and sh1t on the doorstep.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The BH transfers some of its mass into hawking radiation.

Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon.
So how it works:
1. Creation of two photons near the event horizon:
" Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity")"
So, near the Event horizon two photons are created.
2. The photon that falls into the BH has a negative mass:
"The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole".
3. The photon that is ejected outwards has a positive mass:
 The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole.[2] In this way, no matter or energy ever actually leaves the black hole itself
4. BH Evaporation - Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation.

Hence:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.

This hawking radiation is not realistic due to the following:
1. In our real universe there is no free dinner. The payment must be paid in advance and in cash.
So, how can we agree with that fiction?
How can you believe that the Universe would generate one negative mass and one positive mass out of nothing (without any investment of energy) and just after the pair had been created, then the payment is delivered by decreasing/evaporating some of the BH mass with the falling negative particle?
Can you please offer other real process in the nature/ Universe that you can generate something out of nothing and just after getting your request you pay for it?
I would compare it to a person that lost his way in the Deseret. He has no water. So, he set an agreement with the desert in which he would get a positive mass water and negative mass water.
If Hawking could get the pair without any investment of energy, then this man can also get the negative and positive water for free.
He will drink the positive water and just when he will arrive to the ocean he will set the negative water there and balance the loan by evaporating some water from the ocean.
Is it real?
How can you believe in that kind of nonsense?
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.
There is no banking system in the nature. if you want something - you must pay in cash and in advance.
If Hawking needs a radiation - he first must pay in real energy and then get his request.
Therefore this process isn't realistic.

2. Energy Lost
In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost. So, if the Hawking radiation was real, then it is expected that at the creation process there would be some heat dissipation. This heat dissipation means energy lost. Due to that energy lost, the total invested energy for the pair particles MUST be higher than the total energy in both mass particles.
Hence, the falling negative particle, can't balance the total energy that had been invested in the pair creation.
Therefore, this Hawking process isn't realistic.

3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?
I wonder why our scientists are so sure that the falling particles (due to hawking radiation) into all BHs in the entire Universe must be negative.
Why there is no possibility that in some BHs the falling mass would be positive while the ejected one would be negative.
So, while one BH is losing mass, the other one is gaining mass?
In the same token, while the ejected positive particle is increasing the mass around the BH, the ejected negative mass should actually reduce the total positive mass around the BH. At some point, all the mass around that BH would be negative.
That would reverse the gravity direction. (Repulsive?). Is it real?
Therefore, this Hawking process isn't realistic.

I really wonder how any person with some basic knowledge in science can agree with that imagination that is called - Hawking radiation?
This hypothetical fiction that is called Hawking radiation is worst than any other imagination ever invented in our imagination.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 12:10:13
The BH transfers some of its mass into hawking radiation.
Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.

I just did.
The mass of the BH is shifted out, either as particles or as photons.
Eventually the BH ceases to exist because it has lost all its mass.

Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.

Yes there is; the amount you  borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.

In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost.

No.
That's breaking the conservation laws.
(the uncertainty principle does not allow you to borrow a whole universe worth of mass for 14 billion years- just in case you wondered.)

3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?

Half the time it is, and then we don't see any overall effect.

I really wonder how any person with some basic knowledge in science can ...

Well, why don't you get yourself some basic knowledge of science, and find out?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The mass of the BH is shifted out, either as particles or as photons.

Your understanding contradicts the explanation of our scientists.
The gravity of the BH/SMBH is so strong that nothing can escape outside.
So nothing from the BH can shift out, not as particles and not as photons.
Why don't you read the following explanation?

Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon.
So how it works:
1. Creation of two photons near the event horizon:
" Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity")"
So, near the Event horizon two photons are created.
2. The photon that falls into the BH has a negative mass:
"The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole".
3. The photon that is ejected outwards has a positive mass:
 The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole.[2] In this way, no matter or energy ever actually leaves the black hole itself
4. BH Evaporation - Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation.

Hence:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.

Is it clear to you by now?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.

Yes there is; the amount you  borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.

Do you claim the following scenario is feasible?

I would compare it to a person that lost his way in the Deseret. He has no water. So, he set an agreement with the desert in which he would get a positive mass water and negative mass water.
If Hawking could get the pair without any investment of energy, then this man can also get the negative and positive water for free.
He will drink the positive water and just when he will arrive to the ocean he will set the negative water there and balance the loan by evaporating some water from the ocean.
Is it real?

Is it feasible to drive all the way from SF to LA without a drop of gasoline and while the battery is empty? Can we get an agreement with your "uncertainty principle" that we would gain negative gasoline and negative electric charge which would be paid at the end of the road?
Can you please offer any real activity in the Universe to justify a loan of energy based on this "uncertainty principle"?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40
In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost.

No.
That's breaking the conservation laws.

Is it?
Don't you know that a creation of new particle must come at Ultra high temp?
Therefore, don't you understand that in order to create a particle, you must invest more energy than the energy in the particle mass?
Do you have an idea what kind of energy our scientists at CERN have invested to gain that single Higgs Boson?
Do you think that this Boson includes in its mass all the energy that our scientists had invested in their activity?
Therefore, if the total energy in each boson mass is E(Boson mass).
Don't you agree that the real formula for the total invested energy during the pair creation must be:
E(Total invested energy) = 2 * E(Boson Mass) + E (Energy lost in the pair creation process)
So, based on Hawking radiation who is going to pay for the E(energy lost in the pair creation process)?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?

Half the time it is,

Perfect!

.. and then we don't see any overall effect.

Is it?
If the positive mass is falling in, then it is expected that the BH would increase its total mass instead of evaporation process.
In the same token, as the negative mass is ejected outwards eventually all the matter around that BH would be Negative mass.
Therefore, half of all the BHs in the entire Universe must carry Negative mass around them.
We all know that negative mass must have negative gravity.
Hence, theoretically, around any second BH in the Universe the gravity must be negative.
Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?

[Bored chemist]

Your understanding contradicts the explanation of our scientists.

No, it does not.
The problem is still between your ears.
All I did was summarise what the scientists say.
You keep forgetting; I'm a scientist.

Is it clear to you by now?

It's still clear that you are wrong.

Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?

You are the one who insists that everything falls up.

Dave,
imagine a world where you had followed this advice.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 21:22:47
Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?

You could have started last November and, thanks to covid an the unprecedented expansion in on-line learning which it brought about, you could have a sound understanding of basic physics by now.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:44
Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?

You are the one who insists that everything falls up.

I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work. Therefore, in this case the orbital object Must spiral outwards.
So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

However, now we focus on Hawking radiation -
You are the one that have stated:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?

Half the time it is, and then we don't see any overall effect.

Based on your answer while one positive mass falls in, the other one with negative mass must be ejected outwards?
Therefore, do you agree that the negative mass that had been ejected Must have a Negative gravity?
Hence, if your understanding is correct - then around 50% of all the BH in the Universe we must observe matter with negative gravity.
If we do not observe the Negative gravity anywhere in the Universe - then the Hawking radiation is just nonsense!

You keep forgetting; I'm a scientist.

Sorry - there is no science in the Hypothetical Hawking radiation. How can you consider yourself as scientists while you support that imagination?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

I really wish to get your feedback
Do you agree with the following:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.
If so, how can we accept a situation where new particle pair could be created without any investment of energy?

BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.

Yes there is; the amount you  borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.

However, he didn't offer any example to support this imagination.
So, what is your advice about the idea of creating particle pair without any investment of energy as we read in Hawking radiation?

[Bored chemist]

BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:

Kryptid will know this beccause, unlike you , he undersyands some sciebnce.
But for the benefit of Dave- who isn't very well informed.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-7-probability-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle/#:~:text=Heisenberg%20Uncertainty%20for%20Energy%20and,is%20the%20uncertainty%20in%20time.

I apologise for not citing this well known result earlier; I forgot just how little you know.

The weird thing is you keep saying stuff like

BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:

as if it is me making the claim.
All I am doing is pointing out well established physics- backed up be experimental evidence.

You seem to think you are arguing with me.
You are arguing with the whole interlinked mesh of scientific understanding.

And you should recognise that you are not going to win that one.

[Bored chemist]

I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work.

You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.

So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.

The point is that reality makes them spiral downwards.
And we observed this via  Ligo and Virgo.
It's particular stupid action on your part to ignore the actual experimental results.

Hence, if your understanding is correct - then around 50% of all the BH in the Universe we must observe matter with negative gravity.

Nothing I said implied anything like that.
You just made it up.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry

You should be.

there is no science in the Hypothetical Hawking radiation.

Yes there is, the problem is simply your refusal to learn science.

How can you consider yourself as scientists while you support that imagination?

Because it is consistent with the evidence whereas your flight of fancy is not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:57:17
I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work.

You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.

I have already proved that the gravity wave as observed by LIGO and VIRGO is ONLY applicable for objects at similar size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."

It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the  Sun over time.

Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.

Why is it so difficult for you to remember that simple issue?
Why do we have to discuss about the same issue again and again?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:57:17
So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.

The point is that reality makes them spiral downwards.
And we observed this via  Ligo and Virgo.

It is very clear that you don't wish to understand the real meaning of gravity wave and when it is applicable.
For you gravity wave impact between two similar BHs is similar to the Impact between SMBH to S2.
But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!
If you can't understand that, then I really can't help you any more.
Keep on with your imagination.

It's particular stupid action on your part to ignore the actual experimental results.

Please - show me one case where the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is higher than 81 that is spiral inwards.
If you can find only one real observation that can justify your imagination - then you win it all
However, if you can't find even one example - then you have to apologize for your following message and admit that you had a fatal mistake.

You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.