0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/01/2021 17:59:21This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scatteringDid you think you had a point?
This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
there were no Photons
there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?
We know that energy is quantised.Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.
Therefore, finely we agree on something:"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?
For the last several messages you have pushed the Photon idea while you clearly knew that the Big Bang can't generate any sort of Photon or boson.
Therefore, finely we agree on something:"Quantized energy" has mass,
Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?
Quote from: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 21:24:10Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?Perhaps so, but it is hard to imagine any system with such fine sensitivity, so not any time soon. Unlike neutrinos which have a tiny but finite probability of collision, gravitons don't collide with anything, so it's not like its going to leave a spot on a detector plate or something.
Is the basic difficulty with detecting "gravitons" this - any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".
Bored Chemist, in the post above, said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" !
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).So all energy has mass
So all energy has mass.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.
Energy isn't quantized.Yes, I can prove it:
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass.
That by itself is unrealistic.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
Well, that is unrealistic.
During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:06:58You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.I have shown it, it's just that you didn't understand it.If you get the matter hot enough then the collisions between ions will produce gamma rays of high enough energy to undergo pair production.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:06:58You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
There is a possibility to transform photon to particle pair by using the gravity of a nearby atom. However, a photon is needed for this transformation.
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?
As that total energy of the whole universe at the Big bang moment was locked at infinite small space (of a size of proton) how could the energy quantized and set almost infinite no of quarks/particles that are needed for the entire Universe without violating the QM?
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?
I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved,
The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.
True, but if someone is trying to turn science on it's head, but hasn't actually got ANY evidence, (or indeed a decent understanding of how science works, you can be pretty sure he's the idiot, can't you?Also, Copernicus was trying to solve an actual problem with the astronomy of his day- all those blasted epicycles.Dave is trying to solve imaginary problems.
The point is this - can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope. Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?