[Bored chemist]

Why do you think there is a difference?
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
The same is true of fast moving electrons.
In a material, part of the thermal energy is present as the velocity of the electros.
If the temperature is high then the velocities are high.
And, if the velocities are high the mass increases.

So why would a material containing fast (i.e. hot) electrons not have more mass?

It's all beside the point, all energy has mass and that's all it takes to allow pair production.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:30:01
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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.

Clearly to whom? To you?
Do you have any backup for that from CERN?
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster or gets higher temp.

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

So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have any backup for that from CERN?

It's not a secret.
Don't you  think they would have said if they had shown that relativity was wrong?

[Bored chemist]

So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.

As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,

I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.

As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,
I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.

How long are you going to ignore real science???
You have offered an article about the pair production.
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
As based on the BBT, there were no atom and no BH immediately after the Bang, then it is very clear that not even one quark could be created due to the pure energy, heat energy or any source of energy that you dream.
So, as long as you (or any other one) can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explain how the quarks had been created after the bang from any sort of energy while there is no nearby Atom or BH, we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.
ONLY real article please. Without it, don't even try to reply.
I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.

[evan_au]

A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
Clearly to whom? To you?

This has been known for a long time. The most powerful accelerators in the 1940s & 1950s were cyclotrons.
- The main problem with these is that as the particles approach the speed of light, their mass increases.
- To keep accelerating the particles despite their increased mass, the Synchrocyclotron reduced the frequency of the AC voltage.
- You can see the experience (and equations) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrocyclotron

In the history section, you can see that this design was the basis for CERN's first accelerator, in 1952.

E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster

No, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster

No, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c

.
The mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds - that is correct
But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c- that is also correct.
However, it is due to (p).
I have already explained this issue:

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.

So it is all about the mass at rest VS equivalent mass (Mequivalent) due to p.
Therefore, as the particle speed approaches c, the p increases and therefore its Mequivalent increases.
It is very clear that as the particle speed approaches Zero again, the p also would be zero and therefore its Mequivalent would be back to M rest.
Hence, there is no new particle creation in that process.
Not even a single quark.
Is it clear to you by now?

[Bored chemist]

I have already explained this issue:

Everyone here already knew that.
Why did you waste time saying it?

In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.

And it said why
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.
But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.
And that makes pair production possible.

can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explain

That's absurd.
I have offered the explanation.
You just keep ignoring it.

You do not need an atom, or a BH.
What you need is mass.
And there is plenty of that- the whole mass of the universe.

we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.

No we shouldn't.
Because that's wrong.

I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.

And again; it's the D K syndrome.
You think you are right an everyone else in the world is wrong.
How likely is that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Happy new Year to all.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 05:45:25
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.

And it said why
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.

Thanks
So you fully confirm that "In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or something nearby."

I really appreciate this confirmation.
However, what is the meaning of "something nearby".
You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.
However, how mass by itself could be considered as "something nearby"?
So, without massive "something nearby" as Atom or BH, there is no way for the pair production process to work – as stated in the article.
You claim:

But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.
And that makes pair production possible.

As you claim that energy means mass, then you have to show how "enough Mass" can force other nearby similar enough mass to be transformed into pair production while there is no nearby massive mass as Atom or BH. 

Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmed - mass by itself isn't good enough for "something nearby" in order to set the pair production.
Hence, you must first show how that "enough mass" had been transformed into "something nearby"" as Atom & BH as they are vital for the pair production process.
So, even if there was enough mass after the Big bang, that mass must first transformed into a BH or Atom and only then the pair production could start..
Without it - the BBT is useless.

Please also be aware that the pair production is actually a random activity.
Therefore, it takes time to set high production/transformation of pair particles.
Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.
So, also by that argument we should set the BBT in the garbage.

Let's go back to your following statement: "in the very early universe, there enough mass to form was mass nearby?
How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?
You claim that the answer is: "as it happens, the entire mass of the universe"
Sorry, the idea that it happens does not prove that it happens due to the BBT?
Don't you agree that if we can find better theory then it might "happens" also due to the other theory?

In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?

[Bored chemist]

You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.

No
I have not. Please do not tell lies like that; it makes you look silly.
I keep making it clear that the article is inaccurate because it ignores the conditions present in the early universe.

You need an atom or a BH or something.

Do you understand why?
If you knew why you needed a third body then you would recognise that it only needs mass.

You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.

Do you accept this simple fact?
If not there's very little chance of you understanding much else, so you might as well give up.

Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmed

This "confirmation" is an hallucination of yours; it isn't real so you can't base anything on it.

you have to show how "enough Mass" can force other

No That's also wrong.
I have to show that it can allow  pair production; not "force" it.
That's just some nonsense you made up. It really would be better if you stopped making up nonsense like that.

How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass

Do you realise what you are saying?
The mass of an atom is large enough to enable pair production.
But you do not accept that the mass of the entire universe is large enough.

Once again, your lack of understanding just makes you look stupid. Why don't you learn some science?

Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.

Yes. a microsecond is plenty of time.
We know this because the universe is here.

In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?

Do you not realise that's like saying "if we can prove that black is white...".
You can't prove something if it is not true.
We know that energy has mass- we have measured it.
If you learned science, you would know that.

How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?

Again, you think an atom is enough mass, but the Universe is not enough mass.
How stupid is that idea?

[puppypower]

There is a slight tweak that can be added to the BBT that can resolve the particle pair problem as well as the early galaxy and star formation problems. If we start with the primordial atom of the BB and expand that singularity into umpteen particles, there would be a huge increase in entropy. This would be very endothermic and would quickly cool the universe. This may explain why the inflation period is very short.

Another way to expand the universe, in a way that generates less entropy, so the universe can remain hotter, longer, is for the primordial atom to simply split into two like a mother cell into two daughter cells. The daughter cells then split, etc., etc. See image below.

In this scenario the increase in entropy will be smaller and more piece meal, with the forming smaller daughter cells lowering energy and increasing entropy each cycle. This dividing process will also cause universal reference to appear to expand relative to each other. Less energy per daughter cell, each cycle, means less contraction of space-time around each cell. One will see the universe appear to expand. This could also be the inflation period.

Where this is heading are the lowest level daughter cells, from which the galaxies will expand like popcorn. The terminal mini daughter cell singularities would be very similar to black holes, and these would become the nucleation centers would allow for pair production. The pair production and equilibrium annihilation process, will lead to a big boom expansion, relative to the galaxies.

As the galaxies expand, there will be powerful energy wave fronts coming in from all directions from the other expanding galaxies; background radiation. This keeps most of the expanding galaxies contained in space, as well as creates eddies for early star formation. It also causes the universe to forever expand relative to the galaxies. The central black holes found in many modern galaxies are remnants of this early event.

[Bored chemist]

the primordial atom to simply split into two l

What could the dividing wall be made from?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.
Do you accept this simple fact?

What a nonsense!!!

1. "something with mass"
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
We have already found that energy can increase the mass of existing matter.
So, by heating a rock or metal bar we can increase their mass.
However, There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass" while there is no matter at all.
So please offer an article that could backup your nonsense that energy means "something with mass" while there is nothing (not any sort of matter as rock, metal, photon, boson...just nothing!!!)?

2. "simple fact"
Let's assume that there is "something with mass".
However, we all agree that this nonsense that is called "something with mass" is clearly not Atom or BH.
So, can you please backup the nonsense that "something with mass" which is clearly not Atom or BH could set the pair production (without photon or boson) by relevant Article?

Please - backup each nonsense by real article.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by "something with mass"?

I mean something with mass.
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.

What a nonsense!!!

This whole tread is full of nonsense.
That's because you keep posting it.

There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass"

The word "set" makes no sense in that context.
But we do have evidence that photons have mass.
They carry momentum and are affected by gravity.

So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.

It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.

It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they  do.

E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?


If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

[puppypower]

the primordial atom to simply split into two l

What could the dividing wall be made from?

The dividing wall is the speed of light reference, since this is where the continuity with inertial reference and matter breaks down. With the primordial atom, this c-boundary wall is very close and constraining and all that exist beyond the primordial atom, is within the c-reference. This references obeys different sets of rules, such as space-time dissociated to separated time and separated space.

Photons travel at the speed of light, however, they also show finite inertial characteristics such as wavelength; distance, frequency; time and mass/energy equivalent. Photons are partially in inertial reference and not exclusively in the speed of light reference. Photons are like a bridge between the c-refeence and the inertia based primordial atom; inertial scaffolding at the boundary.

The speed of light reference, proper, would make photons appear to be uniform, rather than distinct and variable, like the photons we observe in inertial references. For the finite inertial leg of photon to appear; first photons, they need to get past the c-boundary into the primordial atom; move along the bridge scaffolding.

The split into two daughter cells is increasing the surface area of the boundary with the speed of light reference. This split and increasing surface area causes the references within the daughter cells to appear to expand in space-time; universe appears to expand. The splitting is heading away from the speed of light reference, by virtue of the increasing surface area and the expanding inertial boundary.

In other places, I have tried to show that the speed of light reference, proper, is the ground state of the universe. We need to increase the potential with the ground state to create inertial. What make this harder to see, is the lack of anti-matter in the universe. If we had matter and anti-matter these would lower potential by annihilating and becoming energy/photons. If we remove the anti-matter and have just matter, we still have a potential, but no easy way to lower it. W need to lower potential in a more round-about way using the forces of nature instead of direct annihilation into the energy bridge,

The increasing surface area, implicit of the BB cellular division, is adding inertial potential to the universe. Like with living cells, cell division adds the potential to double the growth in terms of  mass and energy. The splitting phases defines how large the universe will be. The number of divisions equals the final inertial potential with the c-reference; universe size. Like with biological cells, the BB cells are triggered to split when they accumulate sufficient energy, in the guise of energy bridge.

The current BBT theory cannot address how the primordial atom came to be. This earlier than the BB knowledge, has an impact on the rest of the theory, even if the BBT appears consistent with other observations. As an analogy, say you met new person and you know nothing of their past. Rather, you size them up based on today and going forward. Based on this short term reference, there is no way of telling whether their trajectory in life was set, before you met. Do they laugh at your jokes because you are funny, or because they have always been polite? If you are too ego-centric you may guess wrong.

 If you assume the wrong premiss this will lead to problems that will start to appear in other other observations, such as the galaxy problem. These problems may have an explanation that is consistent with things that happened before the primordial atom. The cell division analogy fixes the galaxy problem.

[puppypower]

I was getting long, so I though it best to split this up. Let me address the final split. In this model, the final split will lead to the expanding galaxy phase, leading to the universe expanding relative to the galaxies.

In this model, we are adding potential from the c-reference, to drive each split. This is like the mother cell in biology accumulating food energy to help trigger and supply the needed energy for cell division. What would happen if we stopped adding potential to the last generation of daughter cells? This would indicate the universe is big enough for now. There is a pause and now the final daughter cells will need to lower potential and return back to the c-reference. Reversal by merging backwards; two daughter cells become a single mother cell, does not appear to be an option, since observational data says there was an expansion instead of contraction.

The daughter cells are on their own, to lower potential. In the case of biological cells, where the food supply is cut off just before cell division, the DNA might still double as existing stored energy is used up, but it may not divide into two daughter cells. Instead you would get a larger daughter cell, sometimes with double DNA, where her lowering energy stockpile is transformed into making cellular materials for her expansion; synthesis. This is a round-about way to lower potential. I like the imagery of a mini BB explosion and expansion. This synthesis phase creates the interface for matter and anti-matter .

Our universe appears to be expanding in all direction from any given point. What they tells me, relative to this discussion, references stack at each point in space and time. All energy and matter is still constrained in space and time by the c-reference. When an atom gives off a photon, this happens is zero time which comes from the c-reference.

[Bored chemist]

I was getting long, so I though it best to split this up.

It would be better to put it in a separate thread.
Given that you start with this nonsense
"The dividing wall is the speed of light reference"
it should be in the "That CAN'T be true" section.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:05:53
What do you mean by "something with mass"?

I mean something with mass.
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.

How long are you going to keep your nonsense and ignore the reality?
If it was stated that the Big Bang is coming with at least some photons or bosons then we could agree that there was mass.
However, based on the BBT, the Big Bang didn't bring with it any sort of matter, object, particale, photon or Boson.
Only Energy (or Pure energy- based on wiki)
As you clearly don't like wiki, then please show other article which could support your imagination.
Without it, you have to accept the idea that energy by itself without any sort of matter or object has no mass.
We get one more approval for that from the article which you have just offered:

If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object."
Unfortunately for you, based on the BBT the Big Bang itself didn't bring with it any sort of object, matter, photon or boson.
So, let's agree that so far you have totally failed to show any article which could confirm that energy without object or matter means mass.
Therefore, would you kindly keep the BBT at the garbage as long as you can't show that the BBT "pure" energy means mass.

[Bored chemist]

This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:

And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Did you think you had a point?