[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

Why do you keep pushing the photon idea while based on the BBT theory there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?
Did you think you had a point?

[Bored chemist]

there were no Photons

We know that energy is quantised.
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.

If it wasn't in the form of some sort of quanta, what form do you think it was in.

Unless you can answer that sensibly, you can not claim that...

there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?

Your claim is at odds with our observations of the universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We know that energy is quantised.
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.

Wow
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.
Now you offer a twist in the BBT story.
You call it "quantized energy".
That is excellent progress for you. I have to congratulate you for your final understanding that energy must be quantized in order to carry mass.
So, I hope that you do understand that energy (or pure energy) has no mass. It must be "quantized" in order to carry mass.

Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
Good luck for you!

So we all agree that that Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons and any sort of Particle are all quantized energy?
However, based on the data that was available for me, the BBT doesn't claim for any sort of quantized energy at the Big Bang.

Therefore:
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!

No
We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say is
""Quantized energy" has mass, while  " any other sort of energy" does not exist."

Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?

You have got it the wrong way round.
We know that energy is quantized. Every single experiment and observation is consistent with this. It's as near to being a fact as you get in physics.
If you want to claim that it wasn't, you need to prove that.

Go on...
Show us some energy that's not quantised...

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.

No
You forgot to read and think about what I said.
It doesn't matter if the energy is present as photons or mesons.
Because it is present in some quantized form anyway.

I'm was just trying to stop you leading off down another exercise in stupidity where you say "but all the 4 forces were (probably) merged at that point."
Well, yes they were, and it doesn't matter.

Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass,

And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
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.
So there will be particles.
So the universe can exist.

It's remarkable that you have been trying to show that the universe is not here.

[charles1948]

Bored Chemist, in the post above,  said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"

Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" !   Is there any evidence that gravitational energy is quantised.   If it was,  the energy would  manifest itself in the form of gravity "particles" or  - "gravitons"

Have these "gravitons"  been detected in any of our particle detectors such as the LHC? 

[syhprum]

Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.   

[charles1948]

Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.

Thanks syphrum.  I take your point that gravitons may be individually extremely weak, and therefore only detectable "en masse", as you say.

Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?

[Halc]

Do 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.

[charles1948]

Do 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".

Therefore there will be a problem distinguishing "gravitons" within the apparatus, from external  "gravitons"  produced by external sources.

Could this problem be resolved, perhaps by magnetic fields?

[Halc]

Is the basic difficulty with detecting  "gravitons" this -  any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".

Gravitons move at light speed and are not 'contained' by or 'within' anything except perhaps a black hole. I also see no particular reason why a given apparatus (LIGO say) need emit gravitons, except for the apparatus being part of Earth which emits gravitons at a rate of about 200 watts, a fraction of the energy used to run my blender.

And no, LIGO cannot detect Earth's gravitons despite its proximity to their origin.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist, in the post above,  said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"

Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" ! 

OK, Show that it is not quantised.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
So all energy has mass

Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"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)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
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.
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.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect

So all energy has mass.

As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.

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.

Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as they are currently as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe was at the size of proton.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
So all energy has mass

Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"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)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
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.
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.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect

So all energy has mass.

As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.

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.

Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.

[Bored chemist]

Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:

Go on then.
Prove it.

But don't start by saying things that are known to be wrong.
For example this  isn't true.

So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.

And you contradict yourself here:
 You say

based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass.

And then you dismiss Hawking's:

That by itself is unrealistic.

Well, if it's not realistic, you can't use it to show anything.

Actually, you are simply wrong, it is realistic.

I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved, but it's also not solved for any explanation of the origin of the universe but, since we are here, it's obvious that there is a way round it.

So, most of your post is redundant and irrelevant.

So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.

That's both a non sequitur, and also obviously false. Most scientists do think that stuff is quantised.

I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.

It's a pity that you don't seem to have understood it.

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.

Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.

As energy without mass is useless.

Whether it's "useless" or not is a silly thing to discuss.
It's impossible.

You 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.

Well, that is unrealistic.

It's perfectly realistic.
If it wasn't the scientists wouldn't believe it.
You seem to be claiming to be the cleverest scientist in the world, even  though you plainly don't understand science.
That's insanity.

During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently.

And that compound/ mixture whatever you want to call it, had mass.
It had the whole mass of the universe.

Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.

Did you read that, and think about it?
QM is the behaviour of quantised things.

What you have said is that because of the behaviour of quantised things, things were not quantised.


Did you not realise how stupid that was?

So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.

No
As usual, you proved that you don't understand science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry if I was not clear enough in my message

So let me know if you confirm the following understanding:
A. General understanding:
1. 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. In this case, the total energy in the photon will be equal to the total energy in the particle pair. Therefore, they both will have positive mass/energy
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity & EM of the BH. In this case, there is no need for any sort of quark or photon.
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.

B. BBT understanding:

BBT energy at the planck era:
"http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era"
The BBT energy was concentrated at the first stage (10^-43 to 10^-38 of a sec) in only a proton size/space.

My questions are as follow:

1. 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?

2. When it comes to the current time:
We clearly see the activity around our SMBH and the impact of its ultra strong energy/EM.
Please be aware that based on the Hawking radiation theory, if there is an activity of new pair production, it must be based on one with positive energy and other with negative energy.

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)?

Why at the Big bang moment there was a room for the energy quantized (as the whole space of the early universe was only at the size of a proton), while today, with all the unlimited space in our current Universe - new pair of particles with both positive mass/energy is impossible to be created around a SMBH/BH?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:06:58
You 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.

Can you please offer article to support this understanding?

[Bored chemist]

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.

Gravity isn't involved much, but mass is.

2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity

No
It's not gravity that does it.

3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.

No
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.


Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?

Can you please offer article to support this understanding?

Why are you obsessed with articles?

It's simple straightforward physics.
As you heat things up, they emit larger amounts of radiation, and that radiation shifts to shorter wavelengths (and thus to higher energies).

If you heat it far enough, you start to get gamma rays with enough energy to undergo pair production.

No article is going to make that any more true.

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?

Because doing that doesn't violate QM; it's just that you don't understand 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)?

As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a breakthrough in theoretical physics since I wrote this yesterday afternoon.

I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved,

The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".

Why did you ask the question again?
Are you an idiot?
Do you just like looking stupid?

[charles1948]

When Copernicus proposed his correct heliocentric theory of the Solar System, he got widely abused as:

"That idiot who wants to turn the whole of astronomy upside-down".

The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[charles1948]

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.

Well, that's what I mean.  When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".

Planetary movements could be quite well accounted for by existing Aristotelian "Earth-centred" theory.  Based on those circular  "epicycles", which you point out.

The theory enabled future planetary phenomena, such as conjunctions, to be predicated with an acceptable degree of accuracy.  Given the lack of precise clocks, and the dependency on unaided human eyesight for measuring planetary positions.

There was thus no  practical "need" to replace the geocentric theory, by a heliocentric one.

Copernicus himself only did it, because he thought it provided a better "mathematical" solution.  He never challenged the Aristotelian concept of circular orbits  Only Kepler did that, a while later.  When he invoked "elliptical" orbits

The thing is, all this was theoretical wrangling.  It only became a matter of practical concern, with the invention of the telescope.  This device transformed astronomy.  In its simplest form, as used by Galileo, it's just two glass lenses in a tube.

Yet without it, we might still be arguing today, over whether the geocentric theory can be maintained - if we add more and tinier "epicycles" to refine it.  (Ironically, as you know, Galileo himself never accepted, or even perhaps knew about, Kepler's "elliptical" ideas.  Galileo always stuck to circles as the only conceivable form of celestial motion)

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

It's a work in progress.
But the point is that it works, whereas Dave's idea doesn't.
the BBT might be wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as his "theory" which is impossible.

Yet he's claiming the BBT is impossible- simply because he can't understand how it works.
It would be like proposing  to replace the heliocentric  model with the assumption that the planets follow square paths.