[Bored chemist]

So far you ignore that request.

You have already said that there would be such fields- even in a vacuum, never mind in the early universe.
I ignored your request because it was silly.
You said

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.

but you believe in it too.

Here is where you pointed out that such fields would exist.

"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.

Obviously, if you have a particle and an antiparticle they will have opposite charges and so there will be a field between them.

So you have been asking me to prove something you already knew.
This is what I mean when I say you should learn some science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So far you ignore that request.

You have already said that there would be such fields- even in a vacuum, never mind in the early universe.
I ignored your request because it was silly.

No, I didn't say that nonsense.
This is a lie.

You said

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.

but you believe in it too.
Here is where you pointed out that such fields would exist.

"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.

Yes, that is correct and that is what I said.
Our scientists fully confirm that there are electric & magnetic waves/fields around a BH/SMBH.
Therefore, due to that electric & magnetic waves/fields , new photons and new particle pairs are created over there.
We can clearly observe the outcome of that new photons/particles creation at the accretion of our SMBH.
However, when it comes to the first moment after the Big Bang - there was no BH over there.
I hope that at least you confirm this data
Hence, without BH there are no electric & magnetic waves/fields.
Therefore, our scientists only claim for pure energy at the Big Bang moment.
So, when you claim that immediately after the bang there was electric & magnetic waves/fields you clearly lie.
Therefore, the BBT pure energy without EM can't generate even one photon.

Obviously, if you have a particle and an antiparticle they will have opposite charges and so there will be a field between them.
.

You won't have any particle without EM.
Therefore, if you start the BBT only with pure energy and without any real particle then you can't claim that you have particle and an antiparticle or any photon.
Without any BH/photon/particle to start with, there is no way for the BBT to start the pair production process.
Hence, the BBT is lost at the same moment of the Bang.

This is what I mean when I say you should learn some science.

[Bored chemist]

No, I didn't say that nonsense.

You accepted that spontaneous fluctuations give rise to particles.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear"

And if it happens today near a BH then it would have happened in the early universe.
So there were particles.
You already accepted it and now you are trying to pretend that you didn't.
Well, bad luck. There's a record of what you said.

This is a lie.

I'm not the one telling lies.
You are claiming that you didn't say something when you plainly did.

You won't have any particle without EM.

You already accepted that you do. They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".

So were you lying when you said they do, or lying when you said they don't?

One or the other must be false.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You accepted that spontaneous fluctuations give rise to particles.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear"
And if it happens today near a BH then it would have happened in the early universe.
So there were particles.

No, this is incorrect.
It happens today near a BH, so you need a nearby BH for that process.
As there was no BH in the early Universe, then there is no new particle at that imagination Universe.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

You already accepted that you do. They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".

As usual you twist the data.
You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".

I'm not the one telling lies.
You are claiming that you didn't say something when you plainly did.

Yes, you are.
Twisting the data is lie.

[Bored chemist]

You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".

The nearby BH does not create the pairs; it is irrelevant.
What do you think the word "spontaneously" means?

t happens today near a BH, so you need a nearby BH for that process.

No.
It happens spontaneously. The BH changes the outcome (n the case of hawking radiation) by swallowing one of the pair of particles produce.
But the production of the particles is a spontaneous event.

If you understood science you would know that rather than calling me a liar, wouldn't you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

I understand what spontaneous means.
You keep trying to pretend that there are no particles whereas science (specifically QM) says  that there would be.

Why not just accept that you are wrong, and go and learn some physics?

Twisting the data is lie.

I have not twisted anything.
I just keep on posting well documented mainstream science.
I don't need to "twist" it to show that you are wrong, because you are wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:24:21
You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".

The nearby BH does not create the pairs; it is irrelevant.

Is it real?
Don't you have some basic knowledge in English?
What is the meaning of "Near BH"?
Let me help you:
Near = Close and Close = near
By Google:
"located at short distance away..a big house in the near distance."
close to, close by not far (away),  from a short distance, from in the vicinity of in the neighborhood,within reach of a stone's throw away, a jump away, from within sniffing distance of, approach

So, the meaning of:
"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.
Is:
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear Near to the event horizon of a black hole.
or
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear a short distance to the event horizon of a black hole.

If all of that doesn't help you, it's better for you to go back to class A and improve your basic knowledge in English before you start to show your severe misunderstanding in science.

What do you think the word "spontaneously" means?

Let's go back to Google:
"impulsively, on the spur of the moment.
mutations can occur spontaneously"
There is no "spontaneously" in the following message:
""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."
However, in this case I fully agree with you that this process is "spontaneously", occur on the spur of the moment or just randomly.
Therefore, as the electric & magnetic waves/fields of a BH is stronger more particle–antiparticle pair appear close to the event horizon of that black hole at a given time.
Hence, as the BH is more massive it would generate more particle–antiparticle pair at a given time.
Please be aware that both particle–antiparticle pair carries ONLY positive mass.
There is no negative mass in our entire Universe..

The BH changes the outcome (n the case of hawking radiation) by swallowing one of the pair of particles produce.

The basic concept of hawking radiation s correct.
However, as there is no negative mass in our entire Universe, hawking radiation does not decreases the mass of a BH but it actually increases its mass.
Hence, while the BH/SMBH is swallowing one particle, the other antiparticle is ejected outwards directly to the accretion disc.
Due to the Ultra high forces, EM, High Pressure and ultra high temp at the accretion disc, new Atoms/molecular would be created over there from those new particles.
Eventually they would be ejected at 0.8c as a molecular jet stream from the poles of the SMBH
Sooner or later they will fall back at the galactic disc and be used to form new stars.
Our whole solar system had been created over there.
If I remember correctly, our SMBH generates 12 new stars per year
.There are some SMBH that generates even 400 new stars per year
Once you understand that process, you actually understand how our Universe really works.

You keep trying to pretend that there are no particles whereas science (specifically QM) says  that there would be.

They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".

Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.
The BH must be there.
The particle–antiparticle pair appear due to the BH's ultra high gravity force and its EM radiation.
Without EM and ultra high gravity there is no way to get the particle–antiparticle pair process.
If you take out the BH itself from there and eliminate the EM and/or the gravity you kill that process for good.
Sorry, you twist the real meaning of the following clear message:
"the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole".
You can't just eliminate the BH from this message and hope for the best.
This isn't science.
It is a twisting science.
How do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?
As you claim that it is "spontaneously" activity, you also should know that it must take time to generate significant amount of particles.
So, even if the BBT could create a BH time is needed for the pair production process.
Therefore, there is no way for the entire particles in our universe to be created in less than 10^38 of a second.
Is it clear to you?

Therefore, as you and all the BBT scientists are twisting the science - you all have failed to understand how our Universe really works.

[Bored chemist]

Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.

I already cited a picture of this happening.
Here's a copy.

pair prodn.JPG (95.76 kB . 817x564 - viewed 4574 times)
Why do you say "your imagination" when it's a documented fact?
Is it because you don't know the science?

[charles1948]

Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.

I already cited a picture of this happening.
Here's a copy.

pair prodn.JPG (95.76 kB . 817x564 - viewed 4574 times)
Why do you say "your imagination" when it's a documented fact?
Is it because you don't know the science?

The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932.  Isn't there any more recent evidence?

[Bored chemist]

The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932.  Isn't there any more recent evidence?

As I said, I had already cited this .
At the time I picked an old image deliberately to show that this was not some new found physics that Dave had an excuse to not know about.
There is, of course, plenty of newer data.
The problem is that he doesn't learn science even when we put it right in front of him.

[charles1948]

The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932.  Isn't there any more recent evidence?

As I said, I had already cited this .
At the time I picked an old image deliberately to show that this was not some new found physics that Dave had an excuse to not know about.
There is, of course, plenty of newer data.
The problem is that he doesn't learn science even when we put it right in front of him.

Thanks BC.  But didn't you really only show the antiquated bubble-chamber photo for this reason:

The old photo seems to offer tangible visible evidence of particle tracks.

Which can't be done by modern particle physics.  Modern theory relies entirely on the interpretation of electrical signals read by computer chips in the  electronic "detectors"

These "detectors" can't take photos.

[Bored chemist]

People still build bubble chambers and cloud chambers.
Partly because of their educational value- as you say, you can really see what's going on.

The problem seems to be that, even if I did the experiment in front of Dave, he hasn't the background understanding to take the message in which is why he can say things like

How do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?

only a week or so after being shown that it happens.

I predict that he will say this is "twisting" something- but he won't say what or how.

[charles1948]

People still build bubble chambers and cloud chambers.
Partly because of their educational value- as you say, you can really see what's going on.

The problem seems to be that, even if I did the experiment in front of Dave, he hasn't the background understanding to take the message in which is why he can say things like

How do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?

only a week or so after being shown that it happens.

I predict that he will say this is "twisting" something- but he won't say what or how.

Why should you care what he says?  You seem to be getting obsessed with him.  I mean, why do you want to "predict" what he says.  Who cares what he says.

He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with.  What's wrong with that?

Are you going to get him thrown off?

[Bored chemist]

He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with.  What's wrong with that?

It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?

[charles1948]

He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with.  What's wrong with that?

It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?

So get him thrown off for disagreeing with main-stream Science.

[Bored chemist]

He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with.  What's wrong with that?

It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?

So get him thrown off for disagreeing with main-stream Science.

No, just get him to realise that facts are facts.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:55:18
Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.

I already cited a picture of this happening.

This experimental isn't relevant to our discussion.
Please see the following:

It is all about shooting Atom into Hydrogen bubble chamber
However, there was no Hydrogen bubble chamber/sea at the Big Bang Moment.
Actually, the main task of the BBT story is to tell us how the Hydrogen Atoms had been formed from a "pure energy"
Based on the BBT the first Hydrogen Atom had been created at the recombination Era - about 380 MY after the Bang.
So, is it real to start the BBT story while the Universe is already full with Hydrogen Atoms?
Don't you agree that the new particle pair process is needed to tell us the story of the Hydrogen creation and not vice versa? Do we find any idea of that experimental at the pair production article?
If you read carefully the article about the pair creation process you would find that there is only one possibility for the pair process activity to take place by "pure energy". That process is based on the "pure energy" of the BH itself and we have deeply discussed on that activity.
Therefore, the Hydrogen chamber isn't relevant to the BBT as the main task of the BBT is to explain how can we get that Hydrogen Chamber or sea.
Only BBT scientist can use the idea of Hydrogen Chamber for the Big Bang moment in order to explain the creation of the first Hydrogen atom that took place 380 M Year later on.
Conclusion:
There is only ONE known activity for the creation of pair particles by "pure energy"
That process is based on BH energy.
"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."
We also get a confirmation for this process by Hawking explanation.
However, as I have stated, both particles MUST carry only positive mass.
So, as based on the BBT there was no BH at the Big Bang moment there is no way to transform that energy into particle pair activity.
The BBT is useless and should be set immediately at the garbage.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

With regards to the following message:

"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.

It seems that our BBT scientists refuse to understand the real meaning of that message.
They clearly can read that it is stated that a BH is needed for the pair production process but they refuse to understand why the BH is so important.
They could easy solve the enigma by ask themselves what are the key features of the BH?
If they do so, they would find two main elements:
1, Ultra strong Gravity
2. Electric & magnetic waves/field (EM)
That's all.
Actually, at CERN our scientists try to simulate those two features.
EM - They are using EM power. So, they have a perfect fit with this BH feature
Gravity - this is much more difficult request for CERN. Actually they try to simulate the gravity by magnetic fields, but it isn't the same.
Therefore, they could achieve a Boson but no more than that.
As the SMBH is actually the Biggest CERN facility in the Universe, it can generate New Bosons, new quarks and new particle pairs.
Unfortunately, our BBT scientists do not wish to accept the idea of new particle creation in our current universe. Therefore they twist the science data about that process and ignore the clear observation that all the BH/SMBH are ejecting molecular jet stream while not even a single star or gas cloud falls in.
So, they wish to force the Universe to work according to their BBT imagination instead of accepting the real science data about the pair production and the clear observations as they are.
If they do so they would understand how our Universe really works.

[Bored chemist]

Please see the following:

Why?
Do you not realise that I know about it?
That's why I was able to show you a picture of it.

However, there was no Hydrogen bubble chamber/sea at the Big Bang Moment.

Correct.
And that is part of the reason why we don't have photographs from back then.

Do you understand the title of the video you (pointlessly) posted?
The purpose of the bubble chamber isn't to produce the pairs- that happens anyway.
The point of the chamber is to let you detect and study the pairs.
The chamber forms an image of a process that happens anyway.

Actually, the main task of the BBT story is to tell us how the Hydrogen Atoms had been formed from a "pure energy"

And I have done so.
If you understood science, you would realise that.

So, is it real to start the BBT story while the Universe is already full with Hydrogen Atoms?

No
That's just some nonsense you have made up.

Therefore, the Hydrogen chamber isn't relevant to the BBT

You asked for evidence of pair production, a bubble camber is very good evidence of that.
Now that I have given you what you asked for, you say it is not relevant.
Well, why did you ask for it then?

There is only ONE known activity for the creation of pair particles by "pure energy"

No
You can use pair production. I posted a  picture of it earlier, but you are still ignoring it for some silly reason.

It does not need a BH.
It does not need a bubble chamber either, it can happen more or less anywhere if there is a high energy particle, and something with mass.

Those criteria were met in the early universe.

So pair production was possible shortly after the big bang.
.

We also get a confirmation for this process by Hawking explanation.

Well- sort of.
It has never actually been observed.
But, if you accept that it happens, then you accept that pair production happens.
And if it happens today near a black hole, there's nothing to have stopped it happening in the early universe.
So you have accepted all the ideas which real science uses in the BBT model.

Only BBT scientist can use the idea of Hydrogen Chamber for the Big Bang moment in order to explain the creation of the first Hydrogen atom that took place 380 M Year later on.

You point is as stupid as if you were saying that, because we use aa microscope to see bacteria we are saying that a microscope causes infections.

The bubble chamber is just a tool to observe interactions like pair production.

we have deeply discussed on that activity.

We have discussed it, but you still clearly do not understand it.

"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.
It seems that our BBT scientists refuse to understand the real meaning of that message.
They clearly can read that it is stated that a BH is needed for the pair production process

Imagine this
Two men meet- by chance near a building. They get into an argument about football.
One runs into the building and the other one leaves.

Did the building cause the argument?


Two particles are created by spontaneous  fluctuations in the vacuum.
One of them falls into a black hole.
Did the hole cause the spontaneous process?

Do you understand that the BH does not cause the spontaneous creation of the matter/antimatter pair, it simply swallowed one to the particles?

Please learn some science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It does not need a BH.
It does not need a bubble chamber either, it can happen more or less anywhere if there is a high energy particle, and something with mass.
Those criteria were met in the early universe.
So pair production was possible shortly after the big bang.

Let's verify if that pair creation process is feasible for the BBT

Please see the following video clip
Why pair production cannot occur in vacuum?

In this video it is stated that due to pair annihilation process of electron/positron we get a photon.
However for the opposite process, an external real mass (as nucleus is needed).
This confirms your explanation that photon could be transformed into the pair particle but a nearby mass is needed.
Now, let's go back to the Big Bang.
Based on this theory, the energy of the BBT was "pure energy".
However, we already know that photon is actually Pure EM energy.
We also know that in order to get EM energy a magnetic field is needed.
As the BBT doesn't claim for magnetic field, then this pure BBT energy won't create even one photon.

Never the less, let's assume for one moment that the BBT energy could be converted into mass less particles as Photon.
The main question is how those photons could set the pair production process.
You have stated before that although Photon is considered as mass less particle (rest mass =0) as it is moving at the speed of light (or high velocity) it should have realistic mass.
However, that concept is clearly incorrect.
We can get a prove for that in the following video clip:
How is a light photon affected by Gravity?

It is stated that photon isn't affected by gravity. A photon would change its frequency due to gravity (red shifted) but it won't be affected by gravity.
Therefore, a Photon wouldn't set any gravity on other mass less particle.

So, as the BBT at the maximal imagination could set only mass less particles as photons and as those photons aren't affected by gravity, there is no way to get a nearby mass which is requested for the pair production process.
Therefore the BBT imagination wouldn't create even one real particale pair.

The bubble chamber is just a tool to observe interactions like pair production.

So you confirm that the Bubble chamber isn't relevant to the idea of creating new particles from pure energy.

The purpose of the bubble chamber isn't to produce the pairs- that happens anyway.
The point of the chamber is to let you detect and study the pairs.
The chamber forms an image of a process that happens anyway.

As you clearly know that the chamber "isn't to produce the pairs".
Then you know that the chamber is not relevant to our discussion about the pair production process.
However, you have offered that experimental as prove for the pair production process.
Therefore, you actually try again to confuse me with wrong data.

I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.
Therefore, it can't set any gravity force on any other nearby photon.
Hence, the idea of using the realistic mass of a photon as a nearby mass which is requested for the pair process is not realistic.
Therefore, you keep on with your approach to confuse me with this wrong data.
That proves that you lie to me again and again.

Please, before you claim for being scientist, try to respect yourself and don't offer wrong data or lie.

Shame on you!

[Bored chemist]

The point where you go wrong is about here.

We also know that in order to get EM energy a magnetic field is needed.

And we know that QM variations in the vacuum will give us a field (and, indeed, they will give us photons).

And we know that your grasp of science is not good enough.

As the BBT doesn't claim for magnetic field,

It's not a matter of "the BBT claims".
It's just science.
Spontaneous pair production will do the job.


Did you notice that the guy in that video clip is telling you exactly the same things which I told you, which you said were lies.
For example he talks about very high energy, gamma, photons at 01:05

His first obvious mistake is at about 01:58 where he talks about producing a photon with an energy of about 1.02 MeV.
What actually happens (in most cases) is the production of a pair of photons with energies of 0.511 MeV each.

Now, that's an easy mistake to make.
Another "mistake" is that he doesn't talk about pair production in the early universe.
Nobody would expect him to do so in an introductory talk like this one.

So he doesn't cover the case where the mass needed to balance the momentum of pair production comes from other energy, rather than from a nucleus.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation_radiation

Never the less, let's assume for one moment that the BBT energy could be converted into mass less particles as Photon.

Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.

If you knew the science, you would be aware of that.

Then you know that the chamber is not relevant to our discussion about the pair production process.

It is relevant to demonstrating that the process happens.
It answered your request for information.

Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.

Are you saying that your question was irrelevant?