[Bored chemist]

 Because no Physicist seems certain of anything in their subject.

Chemists usually find it easier to fund their experiments.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. Photon creation

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.

Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!

2. EM energy
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
You also need some minimal space to set the energy transformation.
This is real physics.
So, 10^-46 sec before the big bang, while there was no Matter (No magnet no rotatable Dynamo) and no space in the universe - any sort of bang won't be able to deliver EM energy!!!
Therefore, as based on the BBT theory there was no magnets no rotatable dynamo and no space- there is no way to get EM energy by a bang.

3. Gravity
Let's assume that there was some kind of magnetic & dynamo and even some minimal space to deliver that EM energy.
Is that good enough to create any kind of matter including photons?
The answer is clearly NOT!
EM energy won't create even one photon without nearby strong gravity force. (As it was explained by the BH particle pair creation).
However, you assume that energy means mass and therefore there is gravity:

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.

This is just pure of nonsense
Einstein has told us about the energy in the mass:
E=mc2
However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.
We have an evidence for that:
In atomic bomb we convert mass to energy.
Once it is energy it has no weight and no gravity force.
Therefore, energy has no gravity force.
If your imagination was correct then at the same moment of extracting energy from the atom mass, that energy should be converted back to mass.
That isn't the case and would never be.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in a similar process.
You need strong gravity and EM energy to create particle pair.
As EM by itself can't generate any sort of gravity, there is no way for it to create even one photon

4. Different gravity forces at different space
Based on the BH particle creation we do understand that new particles pair could be created NEAR a strong gravity force, but no IN that gravity force/core. Therefore, our scientists do no claim that the pair is created inside the BH. ONLY nearby the BH - near the event of horizon.
So, special gravity conditions and EM energy are needed in order to generate even one particle.
However, based on the BBT the new created space was full with energy and gravity and there was no space outside that new created zone. Therefore, this new zone acts as a core of a BH. As no new particle could be created at the BH core (while it has EM energy and strong gravity), it is very clear that under those conditions not even one particle could be created at that new BBT zone/space.

5. Time
Don't you agree that it takes some time to generate particles pairs.
We clearly see that activity abound BH.
So, the idea that all the BBT energy could be transformed in less than 10^-6sec to the entire matter in the Universe is the Biggest science fiction by those people that are called BBT scientists.

6. Size of the entire Universe
In any case, let's assume that somehow against all the physics laws some particles could be created.
However, what is the real energy level that is needed just for the ordinary matter in the entire Universe?
As you don't know the size of the Universe you can't tell us if it is feasible to get all that energy free of charge.
Therefore, without clear message from those BBT scientists about the real size of the entire Universe - the BBT is useless.

7. Total EM Energy level/amplitude
Let's assume that somehow we can extract/calculate the total energy in the ordinary mass in the entire Universe
However, what is the real EM Energy level/amplitude that the BBT must deliver in order to create this total ordinary matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
"According to the Big Bang theory, in the early universe, mass-less photons and massive fermions would inter-convert freely. As the photon gas expanded and cooled, some fermions would be left over (in extremely small amounts ~10−10) because low energy photons could no longer break them apart. Those left-over fermions would have become the matter we see today in the universe around us."
So, for each ordinary particle that we see today in our universe, an energy of 10^10 of its energy was needed.
Hence, as the energy in one particle is:
E= mc^2
The Big Bang had to deliver:
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.

8. Dark matter and dark energy
Even if somehow the Big Bang could deliver 10^10 of the total energy in the entire ordinary matter in the Universe, it still must cover the dark matter and the dark energy.
As the ordinary matter is less than 4% of the total energy in the Universe, somehow the Big bang also must deliver that energy

Conclusion:
If you think that against all science laws and against all the contradictions in the BBT theory - this kind of energy could be delivered by a bang and then be converted to the ordinary matter in the Universe (exactly in the requested ratio between Ordinary matter - dark matter and dark energy) in less than 10^-6 of a sec, It's better for you to give up on the title "scientist".
Any one that believes in all the above fictions can't be considered as real scientist.
It is all pure imagination.
Its time to set the BBT at the garbage for the last time.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

2. EM energy
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.

Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it. This AC has a magnetic field, right? So, I have produced a magnetic field with an electrified object. No magnets.
In my thread What is electromagnetic induction? https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78632.0
I present a very simple experiment where I induce an electric current by means of an electrified glass plate and electrified vinyl plate. They have opposite effects. The experiment is extremely simple on the one hand, extremely important on the other hand and yet unknown to this science in the form presented.
Do you know why? Because the contemporary science is void of reality and full of fables.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.

Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.

Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?

I have no further comment.
You said that it is impossible to get EM energy without magnet.
I have presented experiment where I get EM energy with electrified glass (Plus electrification) and electrified vinyl (Minus electrification). No magnets.
That's all I wanted to say and I am out.

[Bored chemist]

You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.

No
For example, the Sun shines.
Why do you make such obvious mistakes?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?

However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.
We have an evidence for that:

Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.

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".

You seem to accept that gravitational lensing is real.
And you seem to accept that photon pressure is real (and if you don't you aren't doing science, there's stacks of evidence.
If photons produce pressure then photons must carry momentum.
(Again the evidence proves that)
So you agree that a photon going past a massive object like a star will have its path changed by gravity.
And that means there's a change in momentum.
And that, in turn means there's a force.
And newtons laws  tell us that if star produces a force on the photon, the photon must produce a force on the star.

And that tells us that the photon has mass.

Energy has mass- calculated as  E=MC2

The Big Bang had to deliver:
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.

And we are here
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And that tells us that the photon has mass.

In the following article it is stated that "Photons are massless,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
"A photon is massless,[d] has no electric charge,[18][19] and is a stable particle."
It is also stated why it is massless
"Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light, c, in vacuum. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the upper bound on speed that any object could theoretically attain in spacetime.[32] Thus, it would still be the speed of spacetime ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."
However, it has energy
"In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[24]"

So, the photon is a mass less particle but it has energy E = pc.

Energy has mass- calculated as  E=MC2

No

Energy doesn't mean that it has mass.
We have just found that photon has energy but its mass is zero.

Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.

As I have proved, this is incorrect.
If energy is mass, then why is it absolutely impossible mission for us to convert energy to any kind of particle?
Our scientists claim that Mass is just a super-concentrated form of energy and, moreover, these things can turn from one form to the other and back again. Nuclear power stations exploit this idea inside their reactors where subatomic particles, called neutrons, are fired at the nuclei of uranium atoms, which causes the uranium to split into smaller atoms. The process of fission releases energy and further neutrons that can go on to split more uranium atoms. If you made very precise measurements of all the particles before and after the process, you would find that the total mass of the latter was very slightly smaller than the former, a difference known as the "mass defect". That missing matter has been converted to energy and you can calculate how much using Einstein's equation.
So, the process of converting mass to energy is very clear and simple.
However, as our scientists claim that energy is mass then why can't we convert energy to new (mass/mass less) particle as a photon or quark?
At CERN our scientists have built the biggest transformations in the planet.
Those ultra big transformations generate ultra high EM field.
So, why this facility can't generate a stream of new particles?
That shows that even if we have ultra high EM field/energy that can set ultra high force on a particle that is running in the loop, it can't generate new particles (mass or mass less).

So it's time for you to understand that the BBT pure energy can't be converted to any mass or mass less particles as Photons, quarks, Atom and so on.

In any case, you actually have even failed to show how the BBT' pure energy could represent EM energy which is needed for the photon.
You also have failed to show how the energy had been converted to all the Photons/ quarks/ particles in the entire universe in less than 10^-6 sec.

I have offered 8 key stages why the BBT is useless.
The BBT had failed already at the first stage.

Even a single photon creation is too difficult for the BBT

1. Photon creation
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:26:55
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.
Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!

You have just confirmed that EM energy is needed for a Photon.
I hope that you also agree that the BBT' pure energy in an infinite small space while there are no other kind of matter/magnets/dynamo can't represent EM radiation.
Actually, you totally ignore the article from our scientists about the new particle pair creation.
Any particle creation in the Universe must obey to that explanation.
As the BBT doesn't fulfill the requirements for new created particles pair (as explained in that article) - it can't generate even one particle and can't cross the first stage in my explanation.

And we are here
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?

We are here, but clearly not due to the BBT.
Once we agree on that - we can look for better understanding how we have got the total energy in our Universe.

So, please take a break and set the BBT in the garbage.

If you still refuse to abandon the BBT, then please start by answering how you convert the pure BBT' energy to EM energy  while there is no matter/magnet/dynamo in that infinite small universe, and then cross all the 8 stages - step by step.

Good Luck!

[Bored chemist]

Thanks for highlighting the next thing you need to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.

So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.

The BBT had failed already at the first stage.

The BBT worked just fine.
Your understanding failed- as usual.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks for highlighting the next thing you need to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.

So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.

Why don't you copy the whole explanation?
"A so-called massless particle (such as a photon, or a theoretical graviton) moves at the speed of light in every frame of reference. In this case there is no transformation that will bring the particle to rest. The total energy of such particles becomes smaller and smaller in frames which move faster and faster in the same direction. As such, they have no rest mass, because they can never be measured in a frame where they are at rest. This property of having no rest mass is what causes these particles to be termed "massless". However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference."

In any case, even if we consider the Photon as massless particles which have a relativistic mass, it doesn't prove that energy has mass.

So let me ask you for the last time.
As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?
Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.
Please - not converting massless particale to mass particle, but creating new particles out of ONLY pure energy (without any nearby Atom BH or any kind or real matter- only pure energy)?

Actually, I really wonder why our BBT scientists can't just change the BBT theory.
Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy" due to the Big Bang, why don't they claim for new mass/mass less particles?
So, why they don't claim for particles energy instead of pure energy?
Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of mass - and then in order to support that BBT imagination they ask you to claim that energy means mass?
It is their theory.
Technically they could even claim that the BIG BANG forms a star system with its planet or even a full size spiral galaxy by its first bang.
They could also claim that each galaxy had been created by a single bang.
So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"
Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles" (mass or mass less) from the first moment of the bang (or even atoms) and save you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc, Kryptid, Evan_au, Mitko Gorgiev and any other that read this thread

Do you confirm that BC has a fatal error in his following statement?

Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.

Do you confirm that energy doesn't always mean mass (especially if there is no mass to start with)?
Do you also confirm that there must be a fatal error in the BBT as it can't cross the 8 stages which I have offered?

[Bored chemist]

Why don't you copy the whole explanation?

Because it didn't make any difference; it was irrelevant.

So let me ask you for the last time.

I'm betting it isn't...

As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?

Again, you are refusing to think about what I actually said, an thus you are attributing beliefs to me that I do not hold.

"As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass"
I don't believe that it IS mass, I believe that it HAS mass

Once again.

My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.

Energy doesn't have to BE mas , it HAS mass.
Do you understand that difference?

Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.

If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.

Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy"

They don't.

Find a scientific publication (Not some bit of pop-science writing) where a scientist (not a journalist) actually says that, or accept that you are setting up a straw man.

Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of mass

No.
Because, whether you like it or not, energy has mass.

So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"

It's not clear that they did.
You would need to show an example (in a real science paper, not a newspaper).

Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles"

Because it would be redundant, or wrong, depending on what you mean by "particle".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.

Well, if you heat a rock it won't add even one more particle/quark to the rock.
This rock would surely be heavier due to the heat; however, as it cools back it will get to the same starting weight.
So, the heat energy doesn't add even one new particle/quark to the available matter and as it cools down the impact of the heat energy would be ZERO.

whether you like it or not, energy has mass.

Whether you like it or not, energy could have some temporary impact on the available/current matter/mass but it doesn't add even one new quark.
You can try to heat the empty space with ultra high energy/temp and won't find there even one new particle due to that heat.
Conclusion -
The assumption that the BBT energy has mass and due to that mass it has particles/quarks for the whole universe is absolutely incorrect.
The BBT energy has not even one quark.
Without the quarks - the BBT is not relevant.

[Bored chemist]

I guess it's progress that you now accept that energy has mass.
Now, do you remember that  you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?

Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.

I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.

At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.

It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.

It really would be better if you learned some science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I guess it's progress that you now accept that energy has mass.
Now, do you remember that  you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?
Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.
I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.
At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.
It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.
It really would be better if you learned some science.

What a nonsense.
When you heat an object its mass increases due to (pc).
The complete equation is:
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2
And from this equation if a system has zero momentum (p=0), then it has energy E=mc^2
When you heat an object the molecules or atoms begin to vibrate, rotate with more kinetic energy. But this doesn't increase the momentum of the system (the object is a system of many particles). Though the kinetic energy of the particles that make the system increases, the system is at rest (when you heat the object the object doesn't start moving). Hence, from the equation I wrote above the energy you provide get added as mass of object.

However, not even one quark is added due to that heat energy.

Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?

It really would be better if you learned some science.

[evan_au]

It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.

What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?

If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".

In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.
- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)
- One way of seeing this is through E=mc²
- It is known that a matter particle and its antimatter counterpart have exactly the same energy E (which is positive)
- The speed of light c is positive, as is c²
- The mass of a particle or its antimatter counterpart is E/c² = +/+, which is > 0
- But the current experiments at the LHC will confirm or disprove this expectation.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

[Bored chemist]

Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?

I was going to ask you the same question.

Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?

Anyway~
What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.

How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.

BTW, you aren't allowed to use a negative mass to balance things.

[Halc]

It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.

What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?

It's alive and well.  For any momentum given to the positive mass, there is equal and opposite momentum added to the negative mass.  Force in one direction on one and in the opposite direction on the other. Momentum is conserved.

If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".

That was admittedly worded ambiguously. I said that positive mass is repelled by negative mass. Force is equal and opposite, so in terms of force, both masses are 'repelled' by the other, but a force to the east on a negative mass will cause acceleration to the west, which is what I meant by 'not the other way around'.  It is this fact that seems to contradict what the LHC guys are looking for since they seem to expect antimatter (somehow slowed down so they can watch it long enough) to accelerate upward.

In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.

- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)

I seriously doubt that antimatter has negative mass, else there'd be asymmetric behavior between normal matter and antimatter (the one chasing the other). On the other hand there is negative gravitational potential (a function of mass density) which very much does repel normal matter. There's the Dipole Repeller which is vaguely in the opposite direction from the Great Attractor and the far more massive Shapley Attractor. Objects on the far side (upper right) of the Dipole Repeller are accelerated away (right and up) from it all despite the mass of all those attractors pulling things to the left.
Red dot in center with yellow velocity vector is us.

I can't find a higher-res image of that, but the colored areas are basically a topo-map of perhaps relative mass density or gravitational potential depth (whatever 'PN' units are) with Shapley being around +1000 and Dipole repeller being around -700 in the center. These are relative numbers, so the '0' can be assigned anywhere, but the repulsion is very much real.

- The speed of light c is positive, as is c²

Yes, but c is just a magnitude, not a vector, so not sure about this argument. But I agree about the bit where matter/antimatter collision produces positive energy. It would cancel to nothing (as it does with virtual particle pairs) if antimatter had negative energy/mass. So not sure why the scientists are possibly expecting something else.

What if they do observe it accelerating 'upward'? That would mean that antimatter has the positive mass and all the normal matter that we know has negative mass. It means we're the antimatter. That would shake things up, no?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.
How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.

I have found excelent explanation for you from Karen Ng, studied Physics Answered March 8, 2013:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

"The people who have answered the question before me are correct in their reasoning but they can use the more explicit expression of:
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

So, there are two kinds of mass:
Mequivalent and Mrest

If p=0
Mequivalent = Mrest

In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.

So again - higher temp doesn't add even one particle/quark.
If you still wish to believe that this is feasible - then please introduce article/calculation to support this imagination.

[Bored chemist]

So, there are two kinds of mass:

Yes, I know.
And any mass will do as a way to conserve momentum during pair production.

In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.

Your lack of understanding is beside the point; the mass still increases with temperature.

If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.

If you ignore reality, you can get any answer you want, but you are not doing science.

please introduce article/calculation

E = MC2

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:52
Please introduce article/calculation

E = MC2

How do you get the understanding that the mass should increase due to higher temp?
Where do you see the extra mass due to the overheating energy?