[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.

Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932
Why don't you learn some science?

Actually it is about a "Production of an electron-positron pair in a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber (Anderson 1932)".
However, it is still good example as it is stated that:
"2. Creation of particles
Mass-Energy equivalence suggests that it may be possible to create new particles."
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?

[Bored chemist]

The grown ups do accept pair production- that picture proves that it happens.
Only you say it's impossible.

Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.

The reason you got it so wrong is that you refuse to do one thing.
Learn some science.


.

So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?

They are.
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 15:51:38
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?

They are.
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.

We do not discuss about new pair creation out of nothing.
For the last few weeks we focus on the BBT idea of creating matter from existing energy.
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.
If you reject this idea for today then you also should reject this idea or the early BBT time.
If based on your BBT imagination the energy of the early Universe could form new particle pair then it is your obligation to explain why the energy of today can't do the same.
There must be one law to energy.
As you wish to believe that energy means mass, then at any stage of the Universe that message should be correct.
If that message isn't correct for today then it can't be correct also for the early BBT time.

Therefore, as long as you consider that matter could ONLY be created by the BBT energy, then this BBT should be set in the garbage.
I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense any more!

[Bored chemist]

If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.

If you were as clever as you claim, you would remember that I posted a link to a picture of it. Of course I agree with it.
But it doesn't "solve the enigma".
It would, at best, convert that enigma into " well, we can get pair production from high energy gamma photons.
But where did the gammas come from?"


What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.

But, if you are saying that the particles are being produced, and they have been for an infinite time then you have a problem.
Why haven't they finished yet?
For any finite rate, they eventually run out of photons.

Unless, of course, you are saying that they come from nowhere.
Well, you claim (this time) that they don't come from nowhere.

So where did they come from?

They can't be from the BB, because those gammas didn't get past recombination.

So where are they from?

If based on your BBT imagination the energy of the early Universe could form new particle pair then it is your obligation to explain why the energy of today can't do the same.

It can- in the right conditions.
That is why it is possible to take a picture of it.

But the condition is that you need a high energy gamma ray.
And you don't have a plausible source for those to suddenly pop into existence, do you?

(It isn't going to help if you say that they are created by any of the known processes which create gammas- please don't waste time with that idea).

There must be one law to energy.

In this context, there is.
Mass/energy is conserved.
The mass of the gamma disappears and the mass of the particles appears.
I have been saying that all along.

If that message isn't correct for today

It is correct today.
The problem is that you don't understand it.
That's why you post nonsense.

I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense any more!

Do you plan to stop wasting it on your nonsense?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:37:25
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.

If you were as clever as you claim, you would remember that I posted a link to a picture of it. Of course I agree with it.
But it doesn't "solve the enigma".
It would, at best, convert that enigma into " well, we can get pair production from high energy gamma photons.
But where did the gammas come from?"

It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"
you also add that:

What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.

Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
A gamma ray, or gamma radiation (symbol γ or {\displaystyle \gamma }\gamma ), is a penetrating form of electromagnetic radiation arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy
"Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is directly proportional to the photon's electromagnetic frequency"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray
"Ultra-high-energy gamma rays interact with magnetic fields to produce positron-electron pairs"

Therefore, without magnetic fields and EM radiation there is no way to get high energy gamma photons immediate after of the BB & pair production.
Actually, in all the articles that I have found about the BBT they only claim for "pure energy".
Not even a single word about EM radiation, magnetic fields or high energy gamma photons.

So please, as you are the most clever BBT scientist on the planet, would you kindly show us your confirmation (real article please) for this new imagination of BBT EM radiation/energy, magnetic fields and "lots high energy gamma photons in the immediate aftermath of the BB".

[Bored chemist]

It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"

I forgot that you don't know science, so I didn't say something that is obvious.

That would be obvious to anyone who does- it's a direct consequence of the conservation laws and Einstein's equation.

Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.

I'm a spectroscopist.
How likely was it that I wouldn't know that?

On the other hand, you admitted you didn't know it

It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"

they only claim for "pure energy".
Not even a single word about EM radiation,

What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.

And, again, we have an illustration of your lack of understanding of science.

And you still need to understand that an article isn't God.
I don't need an article to show that EM radiation is pure energy- because I can use logic to do it.
I just have to ask "Well, what else is it?"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54
It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"

I forgot that you don't know science, so I didn't say something that is obvious.
That would be obvious to anyone who does- it's a direct consequence of the conservation laws and Einstein's equation.

So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons".
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54
Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.

I'm a spectroscopist.
How likely was it that I wouldn't know that?

At least you confirm that the EM is vital for the process of the pair production/creation.
I hope that you aren't going to reject this idea latter on.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54
they only claim for "pure energy".
Not even a single word about EM radiation,

What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.

No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.

And, again, we have an illustration of your lack of understanding of science.

Your lack of understanding of science keeps you away from understanding the real meaning of EM
In order to help you get better understanding in real science, let's see the following article:
"We can get a good understanding of electromagnetic waves (EM) by considering how they are produced."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/24-2-production-of-electromagnetic-waves/
"The electric and magnetic waves are shown together at one instant in time in Figure 3. The electric and magnetic fields produced by a long straight wire antenna are exactly in phase. "
So, EM is a combination of electric and magnetic waves/fields.
The electric field (E) shown surrounding the wire is produced by the charge distribution on the wire.
There is an associated magnetic field (B) which propagates outward as well (see Figure 2).

Therefore, without real source of electric/magnetic fields there is no way to generate EM.

I don't need an article to show that EM radiation is pure energy- because I can use logic to do it.

You need an articale as your logic is totally wrong.
Can you use your logic to claim that "pure" heat energy means Electric energy?
How do you dare to claim that a pure energy means EM while you have no valid source for electric/magnetic fields at the Big Bang moment?

Without electric/magnetic fields there is no EM.
Without EM there is no "high energy gamma photons"
Without "high energy gamma photons" (and Magnetic field) there is no pair particle production
Without pair production there is no BBT.

So please try to improve your knowledge in science, ignore your wrong logic and then give a call.
In the meantime, please keep the BBT at the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons"

I don't need one.
It's standard text-book science.

The problem is that you refuse to learn science.

That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.

Not really.

Here's the line from Wiki
" 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. "
And, obviously, if you want to make heavier particles- like protons- the same thing applies. The photons need enough energy.
Since a proton is roughly 2000 times heavier than an electron, you need gammas with about 2000 times teh energy.
That means something like 2000 MeV.
And that's a high energy gamma.

So, my idea is perfectly obvious and true and sensible.
But you said it was proven to be nonsense because you don't understand that an article is worthless.

Do you now see that you were stupidly wrong?

No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.

Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.
It is.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30
So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons"

I don't need one.
It's standard text-book science.

Yes you must backup your imagination by real article about the "high energy gamma photons" at the Big Bang Moment.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.

Not really.
Here's the line from Wiki
" 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. "
And, obviously, if you want to make heavier particles- like protons- the same thing applies. The photons need enough energy.
Since a proton is roughly 2000 times heavier than an electron, you need gammas with about 2000 times teh energy.
That means something like 2000 MeV.
And that's a high energy gamma.

You quote this message from the pair production article and not from the BBT article.
This message isn't an explanation or evidence for the Photon energy at the Big Bang moment.
Therefore, you didn't offer a link to that article.
That proves again your basic approach to twist the data in order to support the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
" 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. "
That message is fully correct as it gives basic knowledge about the requested photon energy in order for the pair production to occur.
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the photon must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum."
However, there is no claim that this kind of photon energy took place also at the Big Bang moment.
It is just your personal imagination that set the connection between the high energy gamma photons to the BBT.
Therefore, you have failed to show that other BBT scientists support your personal imagination.

In any case, without EM - not even a single photon could be created. You have already confirmed this message.
However, you wish to believe that a pure energy means EM.
I have proved by real article why this assumption is a fatal mistake:

In order to help you get better understanding in real science, let's see the following article:
"We can get a good understanding of electromagnetic waves (EM) by considering how they are produced."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/24-2-production-of-electromagnetic-waves/
"The electric and magnetic waves are shown together at one instant in time in Figure 3. The electric and magnetic fields produced by a long straight wire antenna are exactly in phase. "
So, EM is a combination of electric and magnetic waves/fields.
The electric field (E) shown surrounding the wire is produced by the charge distribution on the wire.
There is an associated magnetic field (B) which propagates outward as well (see Figure 2).
Therefore, without real source of electric/magnetic fields there is no way to generate EM.
Without EM there is no "high energy gamma photons"
Without "high energy gamma photons" (and Magnetic field) there is no pair particle production
Without pair production there is no BBT.

As I have proved, pure energy can't be considered as EM.
Therefore, not even a single photon could be created by the Big Bang.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.

Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.

Yes I have offered clear evidence about the EM.
However, as usual you prefer to reject real science and stay with your own imagination about the BBT.

As you don't understand EM and how it is created, it's better for you to find better job in your life.
The BBT is useless, and your imagination about the BBT is also useless.

[Bored chemist]

Yes you must backup your imagination by real article about the "high energy gamma photons" at the Big Bang Moment.

No.
I said shortly after the BB.
Don't make up lies like  that.
Do you now understand that you need high energy gammas to produce particles like protons by pair production?

[Bored chemist]

As I have proved

You have proved little or nothing.
You just keep saying things that are wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have proved little or nothing.

Yes I did.
Unfortunately, you are the one that twist the data and ignore the real information about the EM that had been clearly introduced in that EM article just in order to backup your wrong BBT.

Do you now understand that you need high energy gammas to produce particles like protons by pair production?

The real question is:
How the BBT could generate high energy gammas protons only by pure energy.
As I have proved, EM waves can't be created by pure energy.
However, as EM is needed for a photon creation - then there is no way for the BBT to generate those kinds of photons.
Therefore, it's the time to set your BBT imagination in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

Yes I have offered clear evidence about the EM.

You didn't even answer my point which proves that you are wrong.

What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.

[Bored chemist]

As I have proved, EM waves can't be created by pure energy.

No.

You seem not to understand what "prove" means.

You have asserted that "EM waves can't be created by pure energy".
But you have offered no evidence nor any proof.

What do you think it means to "prove" something?

[charles1948]

Bored Chemist, why don't you arrange a boxing match with Dave Lev.  Then you could physically slug it out between the pair of you. To determine who's the boss?

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist, why don't you arrange a boxing match with Dave Lev.  Then you could physically slug it out between the pair of you. To determine who's the boss?

Because, whoever won, he would still be wrong.
I don't want to take the risk that "the last word" on a science page is from someone who doesn't understand the basics of science.
He doesn't even know what "proof" is.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Bored Chemist, why don't you arrange a boxing match with Dave Lev.  Then you could physically slug it out between the pair of you. To determine who's the boss?

Thanks

Because, whoever won, he would still be wrong.
I don't want to take the risk that "the last word" on a science page is from someone who doesn't understand the basics of science.
He doesn't even know what "prof" is.

You work against the law of this forum
In this thread I can represent my personal ideas as a new theory.
You can also do so by opening new theory tread and present your personal understanding or imagination:
However, it is forbidden to use personal theory/imagination in order to knockout other theory.
You twist the data in order to show that your personal imagination represents the current mainstream.
This is clearly incorrect
With regards to the "high energy gamma photons", you have stated:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/01/2021 17:57:15
What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.

I was quite sure that you actually represent the BBT mainstream.
However, now I fully understand that this is your personal imagination.
In order to backup this lie, you have used a message from the pair particle article and not from a BBT article:

Here's the line from Wiki
" 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. "

Therefore, you hide the source for this message.

Hence, you are using manipulation, twisted information and lies to promote your personal theories in my thread.
Shame on you!!!

I request the manager of this site to keep you away from my threads.

[Bored chemist]

You can also do so by opening new theory tread and present your personal understanding or imagination:

I am just presenting mainstream science.

I was quite sure that you actually represent the BBT mainstream.

You were right. That's what I'm doing.

And, if I wasn't then the mods would be telling me to stop misrepresenting it.

So, by your own argument, you know that you are wrong.

You twist the data

I'm not twisting the data.
The data says what the data says.
It says you are wrong .

Therefore, you hide the source for this message.

The source for that was a wiki page (and I made that clear).
You say I hid this from you.
Nonsense
Here is the post where you cited the same article.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607610#msg607610
How is it hidden if it is in a place that you know about?

In order to backup this lie

What it says in the wiki page is not a lie.

you have used a message from the pair particle article and not from a BBT article

Your  point is absurd.
If an elementary maths class tells me that 2+2=4 am I only allowed to use that information in an elementary maths lesson?

If the physics of pair production works today then it must have worked shortly after the BB.

Hence, you are using manipulation

I haven't needed to manipulate anything. The facts are on my side.

twisted information

I haven't twisted anything.

and lies to

I haven't lied- and as  I said, if you keep slandering me like that you will get into trouble.

to promote your personal theories

It's not my personal theory, it is mainstream physics.

in my thread.

It's the forum's thread. You signed up to that idea when you joined.

Shame on you!!!

I'm not the one who should be ashamed of putting 5 lies into one sentence.

I request the manager of this site to keep you away from my threads.

You don't need to.
If I was breaking the rules, the mods would have done something.
They haven't because all I'm doing is putting forward well known science

If you had learned the science when I first suggested it, you would be moving on to better things by now.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:14:17
Therefore, you hide the source for this message.

The source for that was a wiki page (and I made that clear).
You say I hid this from you.
Nonsense
Here is the post where you cited the same article.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607610#msg607610
How is it hidden if it is in a place that you know about?

Yes, you hide this information.
If you quote something, it is your obligation to offer its source. Just to claim that it is from wiki isn't good enough as I had the impression that you took it from real BBT article.
Therefore, you clearly confused me as this was your intention.
In any case, this article is a general information about the Pair production process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Not even a single word about the BBT or the conditions immediately after the Big Bang.
They discuss about the pair production process from photon:
"The probability of pair production in photon–matter interactions increases with photon energy and also increases approximately as the square of atomic number of the nearby atom.[2]"
So, you can use it, but not as a BBT article.

However, the main question is how those "high energy gamma photons" had been created by the Big Bang
You already confirmed that Photon is all about EM energy.
I have offered clear explanation that EM is a combination of electric & magnetic waves/fields.
Therefore, in order to get EM you must have electric & magnetic waves/fields.
So far you ignore that request.
Those conditions were not available at the early Universe.
Our scientists do not claim that there were electric & magnetic waves/fields at the Big Bang moment.
It is only you that wish to believe in that fiction.
Therefore, you keep on with your approach to twist the data and clearly do not represent the mainstream.
Please show real BBT article to confirm your personal imagination.

Please also be aware that based on the BBT the pair production process took place 10^-38 sec after the bang
So, it is your obligation (or actually our mainstream scientists) to offer a clear explanation by real article how those  "high energy gamma photons" had been formed from the Pure BBT energy in less than 10^-38 sec after the bang (Before the pair production process) .

There is other issue of a size which you ignore.
In that article they clearly discuss about the size of "classical electron radius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"where alpha is the fine structure constant, Re- is the classical electron radius, Z is the atomic number of the material".
Hence, our scientists must show how they can set all the electron-positrons pair in our entire Universe is a very compact size as a proton size while each electron-positron must have some minimal  radius size.

So far you have totally ignored the requested EM in order to set a photon and you also ignored the minimal requested radius size for electron - positron.
As long as you ignore those key elements for the BBT and backup your replies by real articles, I will ignore all your messages.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, you hide this information.

You are saying that I hid information which I copied and pasted from a wiki page that you had cited even though I pointed out that it was from wiki?

I had the impression that you took it from real BBT article.

What difference does it make?

You said that I was making up the requirement to have a high energy gamma photon in order to get pair production.

So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons".
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.

And I pointed out that it is true.
To do this, I quoted  from the wiki page about pair production- because that is what the question was about.

That process still happens today.
It has nothing to do with the BBT.

If you got confused, that's because you are not clever enough to understand your own argument.