[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:58:57
You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.

I never said that I had.

I said that I had answered your question.
And the answer is that we don't know (yet).

Just because you don't like the answer is no reason for you to say I didn't answer the question.

As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.
There is no need to kill a theory with 10 bullets. The annihilation bullet is good enough to kill the BBT.

Good Day

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The BBT is a useless theory!!!

That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.

Thanks for the support!

[Bored chemist]

As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.

No.
Just because we don't understand how one bit of the process works is no reason to say that the whole theory is wrong.
That's just plain silly.

Also, the same question arises with any other theory about why the universe is here.
Your failed "theory D" for example, ran into the same problem (as well as lots of others).
So does your current idea- the one that Einstein considered: and then rejected because he was intelligent.

We know that there is a lot of matter in the universe and very little antimatter.
So we know that there must be some process which caused that imbalance even though we don't know how it happened.

We can leave that problem for later and carry on looking at the things which we do understand.

And, when we do that (with a full understanding of that science- rather than your views) we find the the BBT works.

[puppypower]

We know that there is a lot of matter in the universe and very little antimatter.
So we know that there must be some process which caused that imbalance even though we don't know how it happened.

The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter, due to free energy considerations. As an analogy, all the natural elements exist because of stability in the furnace of stars, even though we can manufacture extra unstable elements in the lab. The line between natural and manmade has been blurred, in theory, leading to confusion. We make it in the lab, and then theorize this is also natural, leading each other down the rabbit hole.

As an example, I can manufacture diamonds in the lab, and then postulate that natural diamonds form in weeks. I can then do lab experiments to prove this. Others can duplicate my experiments and get my results. While nobody can form a diamond in the lab the old fashion way. This will require an experiment that spans 100 generations, so I am safe. Does this sound familiar? We can pervert natural this way using the philosophy of science.

Getting back to the problem at hand, in beta decay, matter creates anti-matter at room temperature. This does not use a photon to make anti-matter, nor is this reaction symmetrical. The anti-matter that is seen in space, is more than likely made by matter, as matter lowers potential. This shows there is at least one path that is asymmetrical and does not easily go the other way. One direction is preferred based on free energy. The bias of traditions tells us matter and anti-matter had to appear as equal and opposite pairs from energy, so how does beta decay avoid photons and symmetry? Wake up!

I have proposed elsewhere that negative and positive charge are not 100% equal and opposite. The preponderance of natural universe data has negative charge attached to a small amount of mass; electron, with this mass and charge considered one particle. In our universe, the preponderance of natural data also shows that positive charge associates with the larger mass; proton, with positive charge and mass separate particles. These are not mirror images in terms of final steady universe behavior. There is a difference. This final steady state of the universe, based on the most natural data, makes positive charge more connected to GR and electrons to SR, with both paths able to alter references in space and time; uncertainty principle.

A moving charge creates a magnetic field. Since the electron is naturally designed to move faster than the proton, the magnetic component of negative charge is naturally higher in our universe. Protons at the same kinetic energy, due to the higher mass association, have less velocity and lower magnetic components in atoms. Particle accelerator data is not natural nor does it represent the preponderance of the natural data. 

The problem, as I see it, is I try to use the preponderance of the natural data, while many theories try to use the exception as this rule, based on manmade data, since this is how you  getting funding and because the results sound more exotic and fashionable for continued funding.  The random assumptions that is also used has built in subjectivity, that the rational approach does not have. One minus any finite probability is the degree of subjectivity' 1- 0.9 = 0.1 or 10% subjectivity. The sure thing; cause and effect, has the odds=1.0 creating no subjectivity; 1 -1.0 =0.

When did we leave the age of reason and start to the age of subjective fabrication? My guess is around World War 2. Physics received the largest amount of funding and resources in the history of science. While the pressure from military brass was over bearing, since they needed results, yesterday, due to the war. To help take off some pressure, they turned to the oracles of statistics. This worked in this case, along with reason based on mostly natural data, and the recipe was created for the future of science; big bucks required finite subjectivity, with the subjectivity used for the sale pitch and as an excuse for limitations of theory.

In nature, all materials show both pressure and temperature dependency. Concentrations of different materials, in solutions, can also alter phases and properties, such as iron and carbon and phase of steel. The accelerators do generate a phases of matter, but not the entire phase diagram, especially at conditions in the early universe. None on this data, takes into account the extreme gravitational pressures in the early universe to get the correct phrases. We do not have that capably at this time.

How does extreme gravity and pressure impact charge? The electron, which formed early, appears to show us that negative charge and mass; gravity, will form a unique single phase. The line between mass and negative charge is blurred. While positive charge retains more autonomy from mass even with huge mass by comparison to the electron.

In modern atoms, the electron is more about SR and the proton more about GR. My guess is the extreme gravity caused the early forming electron particles to beat feet; the negative change and mass balance shifts to negative charge and SR reference counteracts GR reference. This adds magnetic addition to the elections and segregates the charges, until positive charge potential increased; left behind for GR, to where positive charge repulsion overcomes gravity; boom! In modern times, atoms maintain charge balance so GR can overcome electron SR, so gravity can win the day all the time.

[Bored chemist]

The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter,

That's a reasonable enough idea, and it has been put forward before.
It was then tested and found not to be true.

A few minutes with Google could have told you that, and saved you the time of writing the rest of your post.
That would have been good because it's largely hogwash.

[puppypower]

The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter,

That's a reasonable enough idea, and it has been put forward before.
It was then tested and found not to be true.

A few minutes with Google could have told you that, and saved you the time of writing the rest of your post.
That would have been good because it's largely hogwash.

You are saying my post was disproved by theory that has problems? This entire topic is due to these problems. You need to think outside the box that is too tight.

The biggest problem in physics is the inclusion of statistical modeling. Odds less than 1.0 add subjectivity to theory. How do you think we can end up with more than one theory for anything? A rational theory does not have this subjective freedom. Rational theory is harder to create, which is why things got watered down.

A rational theory can land a rover safely on Mars, without having to fine tune the descent at the last minute. This was not possible due to transmission time delay. The theory had to be perfect. A statistical theory would be happy if it hit Mars, since this can be spun as finite odds they were right. Murphy law messed the rest up. In a rational theory, just hitting Mars, world be called failure, and the theory would need revision or be thrown out. It is hard to compete with watered down standard of statistics, where even failure is spun as success; statistically significant results. I don't accept the dual standard.

Don't get me wrong, statistics is useful for manmade things like cards, dice and factory items. But it is not useful for natural data and final natural outcomes. since it has a built in golf handicap, which gets larger as the odds decline. Failure for a rational theory can still be called statistically significant.  One has to hit the bull's eye; Mars Rover, while, the other only has to his the target stand. How about we play by the harder set of rules?

[Bored chemist]

You are saying my post was disproved by theory that has problems?

No, I am saying it was disproved by experiment.

This entire topic is due to these problems. You need to think outside the box that is too tight.

If the constraints of the box don't include "the idea has to agree with observation" then you aren't doing science.

The biggest problem in physics is the inclusion of statistical modeling.

This thread hasn't included any except to the extent that you have introduced it.

The rest of your post is, as usual, largely nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

This was not possible due to transmission time delay. The theory had to be perfect.

No. The rover had significant autonomy and could fine tune its own descent.
"It’s important to note that the rover can land safely on Mars without communications with Earth: Perseverance has pre-programmed landing instructions and significant autonomy. "
from
https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8860/nasas-next-mars-rover-is-ready-for-the-most-precise-landing-yet/

Did you consider finding out about reality before you posted?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 02:25:14
As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.

No.
Just because we don't understand how one bit of the process works is no reason to say that the whole theory is wrong.

No,
The annihilation process is a key element in any new particles pair creation.
How can you claim that it is: "one bit of the process".
Hence, as long as you don't understand how to bypass that Key element (or that one bit of the process) then don't tell us that you understand how the Universe had been created!

You claim that you understand science, so let's try to understand what you really understand and what you don't wish to understand;

1.  What do you Understand?
You clearly understand the conditions that are needed to overcome/bypass the annihilation process after the creation of the particles pair. 
You also clearly understand that in the early universe those conditions didn't exist.
Therefore, you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists clearly understand that in the early universe every new created particles pair should be annihilated. 

2. What you do not understand?
You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.

3. What you do not wish to understand
As long as you don't understand how to overcome/bypass the annihilation process at the early universe - the BBT theory should be hold at the garbage.

Also, the same question arises with any other theory about why the universe is here.
Your failed "theory D" for example, ran into the same problem (as well as lots of others).
So does your current idea- the one that Einstein considered: and then rejected because he was intelligent.

Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.
Therefore, please keep the BBT at the garbage and let's start to find real solution for our Universe.

It is much better for you and for all of us to admit that you do not have a real solution for the creation of our universe then holding a wrong theory as a BBT.

[Bored chemist]

You claim that you understand science, so let's try to understand what you really understand and what you don't wish to understand;

That's easy. There's nothing that I don't wish to understand.

You also clearly understand that in the early universe those conditions didn't exist.

Nonsense.
Those conditions clearly did exist- or we wouldn't be here.

Why do you make such obvious mistakes?
Is it because "

you don't wish to understand;

You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.

As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.
That's the problem.
Nobody knows how it happened. We just know that it must have, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

As long as you don't understand how to overcome/bypass the annihilation process at the early universe - the BBT theory should be hold at the garbage.

No that's silly.
The Romans made cement without knowing how it set. They just knew that it set. And so they were able formulate hypotheses like " we could build an aqueduct to carry water to the city".

You do not need to know all the details for something to still be useful.

Again, this is a failure of you to understand logic.
It's not a physics problem.

It is much better for you and for all of us to admit that you do not have a real solution for the creation of our universe then holding a wrong theory as a BBT.

No.
Abandoning what we do know, because there is something else which we do not know is stupid.

It's like saying that you can't have a discussion with me because you don't know my middle name.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/03/2021 16:28:09
You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.

As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.
That's the problem.
Nobody knows how it happened. We just know that it must have, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
Do you claim that Nobody in the BBT science community knows how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process during the pair particle process at the first second (or actually 10^-6 of sec) of the early universe?

So do you admit that there is a fatal problem in the BBT during the particle pair creation time/era due to that annihilation process?

It's not a physics problem.

if it's not a physics problem, please explain why our BBT scientists claim that most of the new particle pairs had been annihilated (If I remember correctly they claim that less than one of trillion had been survived due to that annihilation process)?
What do you mean by: "there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed?
What are the missing conditions for the BBT in order to bypass the annihilation process
Please offer full explanation why it is so difficult / impossible for the BBT to overcome that annihilation process?

[Bored chemist]

Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
Do you claim that Nobody in the BBT science community knows how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process during the pair particle process at the first second (or actually 10^-6 of sec) of the early universe?

Nobody, as far as I know, can explain how there is an excess of matter over antimatter in the Universe.
But, even a child could tell you that it must have happened somehow.

So do you admit that there is a fatal problem in the BBT during the particle pair creation time/era due to that annihilation process?

No, there's not an error, there's is a lack of a detail.

if it's not a physics problem

The problem that isn't physics is the problem of your lack of understanding.

You do not understand that a theory can be useful, even if some aspect of it is unexplained (at the moment).

You keep saying that, because a detail is missing, we should throw out the whole idea.
That is plainly nonsense.

Your lack of understanding the difference between" there is something missing" and "there is something wrong" is a problem of intellect logic or understanding, not a physics problem.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by: "there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed?

Please don't misquote me; it makes you look like a liar. You missed out the important clause.
I said

As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.

Just  because I don't know what the conditions are doesn't detract from the fact that they must have existed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Nobody, as far as I know, can explain how there is an excess of matter over antimatter in the Universe.

What do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?
Is it a positive/Negative mass or is it a positive mass with positive/negative charge (as electron/positron).

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?

I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

You remember- one of the the things that stopped any hope of your "theory D" working

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?

I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Thanks
It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.
In that article it is stated:
"In modern physics, antimatter is defined as matter that is composed of the antiparticles (or "partners") of the corresponding particles of "ordinary" matter."
Theoretically, a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge."

Now that we understand the meaning of matter and Antimatter the question is:
How the BBT could overcome the annihilation process?

In this article it is also stated:

A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs. The majority of the total energy of annihilation emerges in the form of ionizing radiation.

So, even if we wish to believe that somehow the BBT could create Electron/Positron or any sort of particle–antiparticle pairs - without solid system that can split immediately between the particle–antiparticle after the creation in order to prevent the annihilation - any new created particle pair MUST end by annihilation with the following outcome: "the total energy of annihilation emerges in the form of ionizing radiation."

Therefore, the big bang would never ever set any sort of mass without solid system to bypass the annihilation process.

So, please don't tell me again that the BBT must have found a way to bypass that annihilation problem.
You and all the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that you have the wisdom of science.
Hence, you all know that there is no wishful thinking in science. You can't just pray to god to help the BBT.
As you claim that BBT is all about real science and real physics law - then please - You must offer a solid physics way how the BBT can overcome that annihilation problem.
If you can't do so, if you really don't know how to prevent from any new particle pair to end as some sort of radiation, then it's better for you to stop protecting the BBT.
Why do you insist so badly to keep that irrelevant theory?
Why you don't open the door for real theory for our Universe.
Sorry - the BBT keeps all of you at the dark age of the science - and somehow you really enjoy being there.

Therefore - for the last time
Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?
If no, we will stop our discussion about the BBT and abandon this useless theory forever and ever.

 

You remember- one of the things that stopped any hope of your "theory D" working

Einstein theory and Theory D offer perfect explanation for the particle pair creation & how to bypass the annihilation process.
We will discuss about it as soon as we all agree to kill the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore - for the last time

I'm so glad that it's the last time.

Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?

No

Now, do you see that it doesn't matter?

Do you understand that the annihilation happens AFTER the BB?
So the explanation (or lack of it) does not actually affect the BBT?

And do you now see that that all this time you have been chasing a mirage?
You have been going on and on about something irrelevant to the BBT because you simply do not understand the science.

It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.

No, I did not.
Please stop telling obvious lies.
(If you disagree then quote the bit where you think I rejected their ideas.)

Einstein theory and Theory D offer perfect explanation for the particle pair creation & how to bypass the annihilation process.

No
They can't
Noether's theorem proves it.

Don't keep telling that lie.
It makes you look stupid.

So, please don't tell me again that the BBT must have found a way to bypass that annihilation problem.
You and all the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that you have the wisdom of science.

I'm not saying that the theory has found a way to bypass it.
I'm saying the universe found a way to bypass it.
And the proof of that is obvious; we are here.
If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here.

Do you understand that I can know that there is an answer to a problem, without knowing what that answer is?
Again, this is a matter of logic, not physics.

We will discuss about it as soon as we all agree to kill the BBT.

Why are you saying we will never discuss it?
Are you concerned that if we did discuss it we would see that it is wrong and so you would look foolish?
I thought that you enjoyed looking silly.
I though that was why you kept saying silly things.
Silly things like this:

It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/03/2021 15:09:32
Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?

No
Now, do you see that it doesn't matter?

No, I don't see why it doesn't matter.
I assume that no one can accept this kind of an answer (Unless he is part of the BBT believers)
As long as you "don't know" how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process, then this unrealistic theory/idea should be locked in the garbage.
You offer the BBT as an ultimate theory for our Universe.
How can you ignore that key element of the particle pair creation process?

Do you understand that the annihilation happens AFTER the BB?
So the explanation (or lack of it) does not actually affect the BBT?

If you had a basic knowledge in science and especially in pair creation you would understand that this is incorrect/imagination
However, I know that you do understand the real meaning of pair creation and annihilation process, therefore this message is clearly Lie.
As usual, you try to confuse me with those lies while you first lie to yourself and to any person that read this thread.
The annihilation process must work immediately at the infinite moment of the particle pair creation (particle & Antiparticle).
If you wish to believe that the BBT is realistic, then it is your obligation to offer real physics process that could push away the new created particle from its twin antiparticle in order to prevent that  annihilation process.
Therefore, any new created pair at the early Universe MUST ends its life due to that annihilation process.
Your "We don't Know" is not an acceptable real science' answer!!!
However, it seems to me that the other 10,000 BBT scientists clearly know that there is no way to bypass the annihilation process. .
Therefore, They actually offer a different tactics in order to get all the matter in the Universe..
They claim that the total number of the created matter in the early Universe is higher than the total number of the total antimatter.
Therefore, due to the annihilation process any new created antimatter/antiparticale would be annihilated with its twin matter/particale. However, as there are more matter than antimatter some matter would be survived in that annihilation process.
In other words, our scientists do not try to bypass the annihilation process  as you claim.
They do not lie as you do.
They clearly know that there is no way to bypass that annihilation process.
They just hope that somehow at the early Universe the total no. of the new created particles are higher than the total no. of antiparticles.

Therefore, the main question in this case is as follow:
Is it realistic to assume that during the creation participle pairs there would be more particles than Antiparticles?

My answer is very simple:
NO!!!
The meaning of pair creation process is one participle and one antiparticle as pair = 1+1
So there is no way to get a pair with 2+1 as two particles + one antiparticle and still call it as "new creation pair process".
Therefore, this unrealistic hope of our BBT scientists should also be set in the garbage.

 

You have been going on and on about something irrelevant to the BBT because you simply do not understand the science.

If you and all our BBT scientists/believers would accept the real meaning of science, you would understand that the BBT must be killed before it can generate even one real participle.
You try to confuse me/us with that "we don't know" while you all clearly know the main problem of the BBT.
If I would use the same argument in my theory, you would kill it at the same moment.

Therefore, it is your obligation to take a decision:
What is the real meaning of that BBT?
Is it a religious?
If so, please keep on praying to this BBT religious and I have no intention to interrupt you in this important process.
However, if you claim that the BBT is real science, then there is no room for - we don't know" or "Hope" in real science.
As long as you and all the other 10,000 believers don't know how to overcome the annihilation process or why there are more matter than Antimatter in a new created pair - then this BBT imagination is Useless.

Conclusion:
You call the BBT as "theory".
However, it is just hypothetical idea.
In order to call it a theory, First you must understand clearly how it works and then try to convince us that what you understand is correct.
There is no way to convince us that what you "don't know" is correct.
Hence - As long as you "don't know" how the BBT really works step by step - then you and all the BBT believers lie when you call the BBT as a "Theory".
It is not a theory and not closes to theory.
It is just unproved idea.
Hence, from now on we all must call it : the Big Bang Idea or "BBI" instead of BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm not saying that the theory has found a way to bypass it.
I'm saying the universe found a way to bypass it.
And the proof of that is obvious; we are here.
If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here.

I fully agree that "If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here".
But, why do you insist on the BBT?
Why can't you accept the idea that the BBI is just a useless idea and it's the time to find the real ultimate theory for "why we are here"?
However, based on this message it seems that you claim that the BBT is the master of the Universe.
If you offer a theory - you first must understand how it works.
We all can agree or disagree on specific idea/elements in any theory.
However, there is no way to offer a realistic theory while you and all the other 10,000 believers don't know how it really works.
As you don't know how the BBT really works than there is no meaning to continue the discussion about this useless theory/idea.
Just after finding a solution for those key elements in the BBT, give me a call.

Do you understand that I can know that there is an answer to a problem, without knowing what that answer is?
Again, this is a matter of logic, not physics.

There is no logic and no physics in a useless theory which no one can understand.
So, do you understand that you can't know that there is an answer to a problem in the BBT, without knowing what that answer is?

[Bored chemist]

But, why do you insist on the BBT?

It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.

If you had a basic knowledge in science and especially in pair creation you would understand that this is incorrect/imagination

No.
The bang came first and the particle formation happened afterwards.

If I would use the same argument in my theory, you would kill it at the same moment.

It would have been better if you had used it.
Instead, you said that there was some impossible process by which it happened (in contradiction of the conservation laws).

If you offer a theory - you first must understand how it works.

At the time when Darwin put forward the theory of evolution, nobody knew how DNA worked.

You just proved that you don't understand science.