[Dave Lev (OP)]

Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.

A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism

Learn physics.

It's better for you to learn real physics
You have just confirmed my explanation.
As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.
Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).

We have already confirmed that the Universe after the bang was full with energy (However - there was No EM or any sort of particle).
Therefore, as a photon is a cell of energy (or particle) in the form of electromagnetisms and as there is no way to generate this particle (or any other mass or mass less particle) without EM, it is clear that the entire energy of the BBT won't create even one photon or quark.

Is it clear to you by now?

[Bored chemist]

Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.

Yes and no.
It has zero rest mass, but it has a relativistic mass from E=MC2
Please learn some physics.

As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.

It is equally clear that without photons there is no EM energy.
By similar reasoning, you can show that if there were no photons, gluons. gravitons and W and Z bosons.

But, it's plain that there was energy.
So those particles must have been there.

What other form of energy could it have been?

Is it clear to you by now?

What is clear to me is that you don't understand this.

You have it the wrong way round.
There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.
So there were particles- that's what QM tells you; energy comes in lumps.

[evan_au]

Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.

Not quite right. Gravity works with mass.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc², and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.

Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.

It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.

Not quite right. Gravity works with mass.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field..

A particale has mass and therefore its mass is equivalent to E=mc2.
There is a possibility to convert energy to mass by creating new particale as it also represents a cell of energy.
However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.
So, energy could be transformed to mass by EM and ONLY by EM.
Without EM there is no way to transform the energy into mass.

 

That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.

Light is also a form of particale.
Therefore it is effected by gravity.

It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch

Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.

So if there was EM energy there were photons.

That is correct, but again based on the BBT there was only energy after the bang.
That energy won't create any sort of EM without matter/particle. So again - as there were no particles after the bang, there was no EM to generate any sort of particle.
So, without particles that carry EM there is no way to generate new particles.
Therefore - the BBT can't generate any sort of particle
 

But, it's plain that there was energy.
So those particles must have been there.

What other form of energy could it have been?

Well, all the particles that we have in our universe are there due EM.
Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory -  New particles are created in our Universe.
So, only particle/matter can generate EM. Therefore, all the particles are there due to other Particles.
As long as you reject Einstein theory - you reject real science.

I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.
It is your problem.

[Bored chemist]

However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.

Have you forgotten already?

No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.

Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.

[Bored chemist]

Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.

Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.

So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory -

That's not a theory.
In Einstein's day it was an hypothesis.
Today it's a mistake.
It's known to be a mistake because it breaks the conservation laws.
Please stop repeating that nonsense too.

I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.

It does not exist.
You are the only one trying to argue about it.
Please stop.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch

With regards to unification_epoch
In the following article it is stated that "The universe was pure energy at this stage"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[23] The universe was pure energy at this stage; too hot for any particles of matter to be created."

So, based on the BBT there was no Mass or Matter immediately after the bang. Just Pure energy.
Therefore, we can claim that M=0
The question is:
How pure energy could exist without mass?

So, first let's understand the real meaning of energy (or energy density):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume. It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"

However - if in that system or region of space there is no mass at all, can we claim that there is any energy there?
Please remember that it is stated that Energy density may also be used for energy per unit mass.
So, how energy could exist while there is no mass in that system or region of space?
Is there any meaning for Kinetic Energy or otential energy while there is no matter at all?
Can you please offer a form of energy without matter or mass?

Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".

- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.

So, if that PURE energy is mass, why they don't claim for mass?
Why do they insist on pure Energy?
According to Einstein: E=mc2
Hence, if M= 0 Then E=0

Please look again on the following long list of "Tables of energy content"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
For each storage type as: Hydrogen (fusion), Wood, Uranium... they offer the relevant/secific energy:

Just as an example:
For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.
So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?
As the answer is no, don't you agree that the Diesel fuel can be converted into specific energy of 45.6, but there is no instant way to convert specific energy of 45.6 to diesel fuel.

In the same token:
Let's look on Plutonium-239:
Plutonium-239 (239Pu, Pu-239) is an isotope of plutonium. Plutonium-239 is the primary fissile isotope used for the production of nuclear weapons.
So, if we break this isotope we convert  the missing mass to energy, however what is needed to convert back the broken isotope to Plutonium-239?
Can we just add the missing energy and fix it back to Plutonium-239?
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?

Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.
Theoretically - we could convert energy to mass - but it is a very long process and as I have stated - there is no way to achieve it without EM.
CERN is a perfect example
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies. Each machine boosts the energy of a beam of particles, before injecting the beam into the next machine in the sequence."
Their accelerators are based on ultra strong EM machine.
So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.

Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.
Even if that energy was 100% EM energy, it should take it very long time to be converted to all the quarks/particles in the Universe.
Therefore, the assumption that 10^-6 sec after the bang whole of that pure energy had been converted to the whole quarks in the entire Universe is a pure imagination.
The BBT is useless. This is real science!!!

[Bored chemist]

no Mass or Matter immediately

Mass and matter are not the same thing.
There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.

Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".

That's not really my claim, it's Einstein's.
E=MC2

It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"

If you are talking about batteries or petrol.
If you are talking about relativistic mass, the energy density is always the same.  The energy per unit mass is c squared.
But that's not what they are talking about there.

why they don't claim for mass?

Who is "they"?
 What do you mean "claim for"?

So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?

You do not seem to understand that the word "specific" has two meanings.
It doesn't (in this case) mean "special" it means "per amount of stuff by mass or by volume).
The best known example is the use of the phrase "specific gravity" for the mass per unit volume or the "specific heat capacity"- the heat capacity measured with respect to a given mass of water.

It really would be better if you learned some physics.

Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?

No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.

Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.

It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.
It's also a deduction.
You can't idolise Einstein for his mistake but say his famed formula is wrong.

energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.

It does not need to be converted into mass.
It always has mass.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
You still seem not to understand that "matter" is not the same as "mass".

So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.

We find it easy to control electrical energy
But, in principle, there's nothing to stop the same reactions happening due to a different acceleration.
Two neutrons falling into a black hole would hit hard enough to do exciting physics.
But it's not a convenient experiment.

You can do matter energy interconversion without an EM field.

Again, it really would be better if you knew the physics . That way  you would stop making these embarrassing mistakes.

Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.

If that was true (and it is false) it would not matter

Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.

So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.

No. It is not.
No competent scientist would say that.
The table is correct but you didn't even copy it right because you do not understand science.
So

This is real science!!!

is absurd.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?

No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.

Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?
Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?

 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54
Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.

It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.

Please show me your observation for energy that is converted to mass!!!
Do you mean the Hawking radiation?

Let's verify the message from Hawking radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[citation needed] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[10]
An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."

If I remember correctly, you have stated that "the black hole's gravitational energy" isn't real energy.
Therefore, in order to keep the LAW of energy conservation, new particle–antiparticle pair must created. However while one particle has Positive mass, the other one must have negative mass.
So, technically those pair had been created without any investment of "real" energy.
Therefore, while the negative mass particle falls into the BH, it reduces the total mass of the BH.
Therefore, based on Hawking we actually reduce the mass of the BH by the same mass of the positive particle which had been emitted from the BH.
All of that without any investment of energy.
In other words - you confirm that today energy can't be converted to real particle:

No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.

If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.
Based on your understanding/estimation, there is no way for today for any BH/SMBH in the whole Universe to use its EM energy to create a pair of particles with negative charge but both with positive mass. .

However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:

There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.

So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?

As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them

You must use those assumptions also for the activities that took place after the bang.
If today pure energy can't worth Mass, then also 13.8 Byears ago, pure energy can't worth mass.
You can't twist the law of science as you wish!
You insist for real observation

It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.

So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!
As there is not even one negative particle mass in the entire Universe and as this assumption is a pure fiction - You are totally lost
You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today. Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
Your BBT theory is useless.

[Bored chemist]

Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?

No
I understand the conservation of energy/ mass.
It's you who thinks you can create particles by magic.
Remember, you wrote a big pointless thread about it- you called it "theory 4", even though it wasn't a theory.

Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?

What I said was that, with enough energy, you can build an atom of hydrogen and an atom of anti hydrogen.
And your response is to ask if I need energy to do it.
Why don't you learn to read?

Do you mean the Hawking radiation?

No.
We explained that- but you refuse to understand it.
Because it is a different process (witch you got muddled about) the rest of your post makes no sense.

However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:

I don't think you understood the phrase "worth of".

So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?

There is a way to get black holes to produce particles, but only at the expense of the BH disappearing slowly.
Your idea of an infinitely old universe must be wrong because (among other problems) all the BH would have evaporated.

As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them

Please learn to read and pay attention.
It isn't that I insist on the first one.
The universe insists on the first one.

And the second one is the opposite of what I actually said.

If today pure energy can't worth Mass

Nobody competent said that.

You can't twist the law of science as you wish!

It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.
That's why you think silly things like the idea that I might have said this:

There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them

When I said the opposite.

So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!

That's got practically nothing to do with this issue.

You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today.

We do understand that you can't create them from "Nothing"- that's from Noether's hundred year old theory.

We know that they are not created in the way that your silly idea said they could be.

Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.

Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

You seem to think that because you are ignorant, we can't do something.
That's a very stupid viewpoint.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:26:59
Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.

Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Thanks
In this article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"The photon's energy is converted to particle mass in accordance with Einstein’s equation, E = m ⋅ c2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur."
Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.
It is also stated:
"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation."
It is clearly stated that "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum" and also that " the atomic nucleus receives some recoil", However, they do not explain how the energy transformation from the BH to the pair really works.
Therefore, would you kindly explain how the BH transfers some of its energy to the creation of this pair?

In any case, as it is clearly state that:  "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum".
So, a pair production could ONLY take place near the nucleus of the BH.
I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:
Any kind of new pair particles/quarks production must take place near a nucleus of the BH in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
Is it clear to you by now? If not let me whisper the following:
As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!
Hence, do you finely understand why the garbage is a good place for the BBT?
If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physics (conservation of energy and momentum) in order to hold the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.

Not a problem.

"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil.

You forgot to bold this bit " in free space "
In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.

So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.


Do you understand that, when people write things like

The photon must be near a nucleus

they don't include caveats like "except in the first flash of the Universe"?

It's generally true, but not absolutely.
In fact anything that gives rise to a potential gradient is good enough.

I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:

Yes.
I do.
It's a pity you didn't but that's because you refuse to do as I suggest and learn some physics.
If you did, you wouldn't make mistakes like this

a nucleus of the BH in

When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.
It's nothing to do with black holes. A black hole doesn't really have a nucleus- it has a singularity in the middle.

Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?
Did you just not understand, or were you hoping I wouldn't notice the mistake?

As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum

Yes I can.
In the circumstances of the very early universe the photon(etc) density was high enough that you could use photons instead of nuclei.
Indeed, some of the photons would be more massive than nuclei.

So, what you said is wrong- because you don't understand the physics involved
Perhaps you will remember that  next time and avoid the embarrassment of being WRONG IN CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS LIKE THIS.

NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!

Because it just makes you look childish.

If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physics

As I pointed out before.

It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.

I don't need to twist it, I just need to understand it.
You should try this approach. It's much more satisfying than posting nonsense and getting laughed at.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.

In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.
So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.

I would like to remind you that based on the BBT theory the Big Bang had delivered PURE energy and space.
Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.
So, it is all about PURE energy.
Therefore, you can't just use Atom nucleus or Photon energy for the pair particle creation while we have no clue how those Atom nucleus or Photon had been created from that pure energy.

Therefore, your task is to show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space) could be converted to Atoms nucleus, Photons, quarks and all other forms of particles that are needed for the entire Universe in less than 10^-6 sec..

Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?

In that article they also highlight the Pair production by BH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole"

So our scientists assume that the new particles pair is created by the BH strong gravitational tidal forces.
However, they do not clearly explain how the energy transformation into the new created pair really works.
Are they sure that the strong gravitational tidal forces are good enough for the creation process?
What about EM? Don't you agree that it is also a vital element for that process?

In any case -
I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
So, Please show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space and free of charge) - could be converted to any sort of particle while there are no BH, no matter (any sort of matter) no EM and no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.

[evan_au]

If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.

An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.
- It is a difficult experiment, and the first attempts had really big uncertainties (bigger than 1 g)
- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.
- Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc²), but they are testing it to make sure!
See: https://home.cern/science/experiments/aegis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Properties

Please show how ...the Big Bang ... (has) no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.

On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.
- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_background#Cosmological_Sources

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Evan-au
Thanks for your reply

Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc2),

Yes, I fully agree with that.
There is not even one Antimatter particle with Negative mass in our entire Universe - Only positive mass!!!
Hence, the Hawking radiation theory for negative mass should be set in the garbage.
In any case, for any particles pair (both with positive mass) somehow Energy must be delivered.
Hence, if the requested energy for one particle is:
E1=mc2
Then for both particles it should be:
E=E1+E2 = mc2+mc2 = 2mc2
So, how a BH could deliver that energy to the new created particles pair?
I wonder what "Most physicists" think about that problem.
Why they reject the idea of EM energy transformation.
As electronic Engineer I'm well aware about the great impact of EM transformation.
We are using EM transformation/power supply for almost any electric equipment.
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand the great impact of EM transformation?
Don't they have a basic knowledge in EM & electronics?

 

- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.

They are wasting their time.
There is no negative mass and there will be no negative mass.

On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.

I assume that as it is thought that 10^-6 sec after the bang all the particles (base on the BBT theory) had been created, and therefore it is expected that there "were very strong gravitational effects".
However, as not even a single particle could be created from a pure energy, then the idea of "very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang" should be set in the garbage.

- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).

Again - they are wasting their time for nothing.

[Bored chemist]

Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.
So, it is all about PURE energy.

There' no point reminding me of things I already know.
But, as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
You need to start paying attention.
Otherwise you just look childish.

I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.

Why do you hope that I say Einstein was wrong?
He was, of course, quite right about this.
Energy does produce a gravitational field because it has mass according to Einstein's famed equation.

Again I have already pointed this out.
Again, you ignore it and look a fool.

[charles1948]

Don't you think that Chemists are better than Physicists?   Because no Physicist seems certain of anything in their subject.

When you ask a Physicist a question, you never get a straight answer.. 

Whereas, if you ask a Chemist a question about their subject, you get a  precise, definite, and verifiable answer.

At least, that's the impression I get.  Do others feel the same?

[Halc]

An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.

Seriously? Do they know that negative mass also 'falls down' under positive gravity? It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.  Just plug the numbers into F=GMm/r² and F=ma.  Acceleration 'a' is still positive in this situation.