[Bored chemist]

I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.

No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Of course photons are affected by gravity.

Why do you keep making up nonsense like that?

However, you have offered that experimental as prove for the pair production process.

You can see the pair of particles produced.
So it is proof of pair production.

Therefore, you actually try again to confuse me with wrong data.

The data is right.
What causes your confusion is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Shame on you!

I am not ashamed of pointing out well known science.
Are you ashamed of not paying attention?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:50:44
I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.

No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Of course photons are affected by gravity.

Well, it is quite clear that you don't care about real science.
You have decided to ignore all the valid data that I have offered
Instead you focus on the impact of a BH on the Light.
This is quite different as a massive BH or galaxy sets ultra high gravity force.
We actually discuss on a fairly low gravity.
I have proved that even star can't reduce the velocity of a Photon due to its gravity:

"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."

However, the Gravitational_lens is due to the curvature of space time of the ultra high gravity force as BH or far away massive galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
"In general relativity, light follows the curvature of spacetime, hence when light passes around a massive object, it is bent. This means that the light from an object on the other side will be bent towards an observer's eye, just like an ordinary lens."
Hence, this doesn't represent our case.
We discuss on a nearby mass as a nuclease.
You even claimed that BH isn't needed: (It does not need a BH.)

In any case, many thanks for this example.
Please remember that we discuss about a pair production process from a photon.
The space is full with galaxies, BH, Stars, Planets, Asteroids and even hydrogen Atoms.
However, empty space isn't really empty. In any given space/square there must be some sort of matter.
So a photon that had been emitted 13By ago has to cross near millions of BH/Stars/Galaxies and trillions over trillions hydrogen atoms and nucleases.
We clearly observe the outcome of that by the Gravitational_lens
However, after all of that, how could it be that not even a single photon had not lost his life or energy for the new particle pair?
Actually, even the atmosphere around the Earth is full with air and nucleases.

If your following imagination was correct:

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.

Then, any photon that would move in  the space which is full with hydrogen Atoms or penetrate into our atmosphere must cross near mass and therefore should be converted into a new pair of particle.
However, that isn't the case.
So, the imagination of converting photon to new particle pair isn't working.

Let's go back to the Hydrogen chamber.
In this experimental our scientists shoot Atom into that chamber and clearly detect/observe the particle pair process.
However, your mission isn't to convert Atom energy into particle pair, but to convert photon energy into that pair.
So, what might be the outcome of shooting energetic photons beam into that hydrogen chamber?
If we would shoot trillions of photons would be get even one particle pair?
Don't you agree that the answer is clearly no?

If you still wish to hold your imagination of pair production from photon then please show the real observation for that.
Please remember, in the Hydrogen chamber we could really observe the pair particles due to the collision with Atom.
Would you kindly explain why the energetic photons could cross the Hydrogen chamber, the space which is full with Hydrogen atoms and our atmosphere without being transformed into new pair particles?

I hope that by now you confirm that the activity in our Universe prove that photons do not contribute their energy to set the particle pair process even if there is a nearby mass.

Hence, you have to agree that as the whole BBT imagination is based on that imagination then by eliminating one imagination the other one should go directly to the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

You have decided to ignore all the valid data that I have offered

Unless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.

If we would shoot trillions of photons would be get even one particle pair?
Don't you agree that the answer is clearly no?

Wrong. The answer is clearly "yes".
If you use hard gammas, then most of them would turn into pairs.
"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. "

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production


Do you remember that page?
You cited it in the first place.
Then you complained when I used a quote from it because you had the bizarre idea that I was hiding where I got my quote.
And now I am quoting it again.
And I am pointing out that it says the exact opposite of what you say.
Why is that?
Why did you not understand it?

You should learn some science, shouldn't you?

Would you kindly explain why the energetic photons could cross the Hydrogen chamber, the space which is full with Hydrogen atoms and our atmosphere without being transformed into new pair particles?

In much the same was as Xrays, gamma rays usually go through matter.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Unless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.

No
Gravity doesn't slow down the photon velocity as it might affect any other real mass.
As I have already informed the gravitational lensing is actually a curvature in space time due to the ultra gravity force.
Even so, that curvature in space is the base for the curvature in the light/photon.
In any case, it doesn't change the velocity of the photon as it should chage any real mass/object that would penetrate to that aria.
That proves that photon has no mass.

If you use hard gammas, then most of them would turn into pairs.

Well, first you have to prove that the pure BBT energy could set those gammas.
You have already known that photons and gammas are all about EM.
For EM you need Electro/magnetic waves/fields
You have to agree that there were no Dynamo or magnets at the early Universe.
Therefore, there is no EM. Without EM there is no photons or high energetic photons as Gammas..
Even if you wish to believe that photons would be created, why are you so sure that those photons are energetic?
How a pure energy could set photons at ultra high energy?
Based on the BBT, the space itself is expanding. So, any mass or mass less particale must move with the space.
So nothing could move faster than the space expansion.
However, the photon/gammas must move at the speed of light with reference to their space time. Therefore if there photons/gammas they had to break the envelop of the expanding universe.
This is one more explanation why photons/gammas can't be created at the early Universe.

much faster than the space expansion.

"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. "

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Do you remember that page?

Yes I do.
However, now I understand that this isn't realistic.
Photons/gammas cross the space of our current universe.
The space is full with mass and atoms.
So if that idea was correct, then any photon/gammas had to be converted to the particle pair.
However, this isn't the case; We clearly can observe those photons/gammas as they cross the space without any pair creation.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:30:10
Would you kindly explain why the energetic photons could cross the Hydrogen chamber, the space which is full with Hydrogen atoms and our atmosphere without being transformed into new pair particles?
In much the same was as Xrays, gamma rays usually go through matter.

You do not answer the question:
If the following imagination that photons are converted to the new particle pair as they move near by mass, then why we can't observe that process in our universe or even in the Hydrogen chamber?
Why we can clearly see the pair particle process due to shooting an atom to the chamber, while we can't see the same pair process by shooting energetic photons to that chamber?

If we can't observe the pair creation process by photons as we see with atom, thean this idea is not relevant. 

[Bored chemist]

No
Gravity doesn't slow down the photon velocity as it might affect any other real mass.

I said the nature of the effect was "much the same" rather than "exactly the same" ..
So, your grumbling about that detail is pointless.

As I have already informed the gravitational lensing is actually a curvature in space time due to the ultra gravity force.
Even so, that curvature in space is the base for the curvature in the light/photon.

And the path of a a satellite through space is also due to gravity curving space.
It is, in this regard, much the same as the way that a photon is affected.

So, your "proof" is meaningless.
And photons still have (relativistic) mass.
So they can still bring about  pair production.

The important criterion is that they can carry momentum- and they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Relativistic_energy_and_momentum

Well, first you have to prove that the pure BBT energy could set those gammas.

No I do not.
Those gamma rays were part of an experiment you suggested using a bubble chamber.
You invented them.

However, the reason why there were gammas early in the universe is simple.
There was a lot of energy- what forms could it have taken?

You have to agree that there were no Dynamo or magnets at the early Universe.
Therefore, there is no EM. W

Nonsense.


Elephants make sound.
There are no elephants in my room.
Therefore there is no sound in my room.

Dynamos make EM fields
There are no dynamos in the early universe
therefore there are no EM fields in the early universe.

Do you understand why your statement is stupid?

There can be other sources of EM fields.
I already pointed this out but, because you do not understand science, you did not realise what I had said.

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.

Do you understand what that means.

EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.

why are you so sure that those photons are energetic?

This law of physics, which you would be aware of if you knew some science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem
Why do you refuse to learn?

This is one more explanation why photons/gammas can't be created at the early Universe.

No. It is one more reason why you should learn science. Then you would know that what  you wrote is nonsense.

However, now I understand that this isn't realistic.

Your view of what happens is unrealistic. This is because you do not know the science.

The space is full with mass and atoms.

Space is more or less empty- hence the name "space",

So if that idea was correct, then any photon/gammas had to be converted to the particle pair.

Not really.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
You said that gammas could not form pairs because they need a nearby mass in order to balance the momentum changes.
But you say that in space where there is no mas, they should form pairs.

What is "unrealistic" here is your view that the photons should only do what you want them to do.

Why we can clearly see the pair particle process due to shooting an atom to the chamber, while we can't see the same pair process by shooting energetic photons to that chamber?

We can see pair production from gammas.
Someone got a Nobel prize for it.
"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.[3] If the photon is near an atomic nucleus, the energy of a photon can be converted into an electron–positron pair:"

You do not answer the question:

You quoted my answer...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dynamos make EM fields
There are no dynamos in the early universe
therefore there are no EM fields in the early universe.

Thanks
So let's agree on something:
1. There was no magnet and no dynamo in the early Universe.
2. Therefore, there was no electricity and no EM in that early Universe.

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.

Sorry, in order for energy to be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously, that energy must be Electricity.
Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons. .
If you have an idea how to get light at the "light bulb" without electricity, Dynamo or magnets then please share your great knowledge with us.
Are you sure that we can light the bulb by whatever energy form it is initially present as kinetic, potential or gravity?

EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.

Would you kindly backup this great knowledge by any real article?
As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.
Maybe we can be milliners with your great knowledge.

[Bored chemist]

hanks
So let's agree on something:
1. There was no magnet and no dynamo in the early Universe.
2. Therefore, there was no electricity and no EM in that early Universe.

No; because you forgot the important bit.

There can be other sources of EM fields.
I already pointed this out but, because you do not understand science, you did not realise what I had said.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/02/2021 09:09:04
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.

Do you understand what that means.

EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.

Sorry, in order for energy to be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously, that energy must be Electricity.

No.
You made that false statement without evidence and I am dismissing it in the same way.

Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons. .

Yes you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
That's what makes them spontaneous.

If you have an idea how to get light at the "light bulb" without electricity, Dynamo or magnets then please share your great knowledge with us.

I don't need to share it with anyone but you.
The people who actually understand science already know it.

As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.

No.
That's not true is it?

If you really wanted to know more you would have done what I have been asking you to do for ages, and you would have learned stuff.

You don't want to learn more.
You just want to stay ignorant and pretend that everybody else is wrong but you magically know how everything works.

It's not going to work, is it?
People like me will point out things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
which shows that you do get fields produced from nothing.

Maybe we can be milliners with your great knowledge.

I have no wish to start making hats.
But since you refuse to learn science perhaps you should start making hats rather than pretending that you are an "Electronic Engineer".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:28
Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons.

.
Yes you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
That's what makes them spontaneous.

Did you read that article?
It is stated:
"In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction."
So, the Virtual photons are the outcome of the electromagnetic repulsion.
Hence, in the early Universe, without EM there is no way to get those virtual photons and therefore there are no real photons.

If you still think differently - please offer better article to support your misunderstanding

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:28
As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.

No.
That's not true is it?

It is true if you like it or not.

People like me will point out things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
which shows that you do get fields produced from nothing.

It's better for you learn some science and basic electronics before you try to highlight your misunderstanding.
You don't need to be electronic engineer or scientist in order to understand that without EM there are no photons.

So far you have failed to show how photons could be created without EM.
Hence, without EM the BBT is useless.

By the way, this is just the first step before getting to the Gammas...

[Bored chemist]

Did you read that article?
It is stated:
"In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction."

Yes.
I read it.
I also read the rest of it.
I guess you stopped when you saw that bit because you didn't dare read teh rest.
What it goes on to say is this

The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
and
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).

And if you had really wanted to find out how it's possible to get virtual photons out of nowhere, you would have read about those phenomena.

And that's why I say that this

I would love to get more information about that idea.

is a lie.

If you really wanted to get more information, you would have read about it.

It's better for you learn some science and basic electronics before you try to highlight your misunderstanding.

I didn't misunderstand anything.
It's just that you didn't actually read the stuff which you say you are interested in, even though I pointed it out to you.

So far you have failed to show how photons could be created without EM.

No.
I pointed you to the right effects but you didn't read them did you?

Did you read the articles cited in that wiki page?
If you were really interested in the idea that EM fields form spontaneously in the universe. But you didn't did you?

By the way, this is just the first step before getting to the Gammas...

I'm glad to see that you now accept that the gammas are needed.
That rules out your idea of how the Universe behaves.

[charles1948]

Nobody wants to read anything that contradicts their views

[Bored chemist]

Nobody wants to read anything that contradicts their views

Dave could avoid that discomfort by not posting antiscientific nonsense on a science page.

[charles1948]

Who decides what is "anti-scientific".  You, or Dave?

[Bored chemist]

Who decides what is "anti-scientific".  You, or Dave?

No, Those are silly options.
The evidence decides- as always.
So, for example, a picture of pair production shows that pair production happens- no matter how loudly Dave cries about it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.

Do you claim that in the early universe there were electrically neutral metal plates?
If there was no matter just after the bang, how that Casimir effect could work?

Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. "
Hence, the background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs and not the other way.
Therefore, without EM there is no vacuum polarization.

Yes.
I read it.
I also read the rest of it.

Please read it again.
You have a fatal misunderstanding.

[Bored chemist]

Do you claim that in the early universe there were electrically neutral metal plates?

No
I'm not an idiot.
But I am saying that, since the Casimir effect works  in the lab today, you can use it as evidence for the spontaneous production of virtual particles which give rise to an electric field.
And that's what you asked me to show.

Therefore, you must have EM in order to get that vacuum polarization.

You didn't understand it.
That background field is always there - it is an innate property of space.

Hence, the background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs

Yes, it does.
And if you produce an positron and an electron then they have opposite charges and so there is an EM field between them.
The spontaneous generation of particles- as shown by the Casimir effect- must give rise to electric fields.

Please read it again.
You have a fatal misunderstanding.

You keep saying that sort of thing at the bottom of posts where you made silly mistakes.

Why do you do that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But I am saying that, since the Casimir effect works  in the lab today, you can use it as evidence for the spontaneous production of virtual particles which give rise to an electric field.
And that's what you asked me to show.

No
I have asked how EM could be created while there is no any kind of matter after the bang.
You have totally failed to show that EM could be created at those conditions of the early Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:37:57
Therefore, you must have EM in order to get that vacuum polarization.

You didn't understand it.
That background field is always there - it is an innate property of space.

No, you didn't understand it.
You must have ORIGINAL EM to start the vacuum polarization process.
Without that original EM there is no  vacuum polarization to start with.

And if you produce an positron and an electron then they have opposite charges and so there is an EM field between them.

No
The produce of the positron and an electron effects the original EM.
This is very normal procedure as in any electrical equipment you consume current or energy for its operation.
Please read it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. "
So, the background electromagnetic field must be there in order to start the produces of virtual electron–positron pairs.
However, due to that  produces of virtual electron–positron pairs it changes the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. Those changes effects the conditions of the Original EM.

So, for example, a picture of pair production shows that pair production happens- no matter how loudly Dave cries about it.

The pair production happens ONLY by EM.
You had just offered the confirmation for that.
Hence, as there was no Magnets, electrically neutral metal plates or Dynamo at the early Universe - there was no EM.
Therefore, without EM there is no Photons or any pair process.

However
We all agree that the SMBH generates EM.
This EM sets the vacuum polarization which is the base for all the photons and pair process activity at the accretion disc.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple data?

[Bored chemist]

You have totally failed to show that EM could be created at those conditions of the early Universe.

You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.

So, I have shown that pair production happens in what you say are the early conditions of the universe.

It's just that you won't listen.

No,
You must have EM to start the vacuum polarization process.

No
Spontaneous pair production just happens.
You do not need a pre-existing EM field to produce it.
That's why it's called spontaneous.
(I think that's the third time I have explained that exact point to you- why don't you listen?)

Please read it again:

No matter how many times I read it, you still will not understand it.

This is very normal procedure as in any electrical equipment you consume current or energy for its operation.

And it is far from normal in the vacuum ; but it happens.
As I have pointed ot several times before, it's an aspect of quantum mechanics.
You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.

Did you know that?

The pair production happens ONLY by EM.

No, it's spontaneous and your use of CAPITAL letters does not change that.

Hence, as there was no Magnets, electrically neutral metal plates or Dynamo at the early Universe - there was no EM.

No.
Because there is another source of EM fields- the spontaneous production of particle / antiparticle pairs.

This EM sets the vacuum polarization

No

We all agree that the SMBH generates EM.

Wait a minute; an uncharged black hole can't produce an EM field any more than the vacuum can.

Now, I understand that a vacuum can do that . You say it can not.
So you are saying that an uncharged BH can not produce any EM field.
And, if that's the case then your whole idea falls down because there is no mechanism to produce any charges or EM fields.
A black hole also does not have metal plates or a dynamo.

You either have to accept that you are wrong about the fact that EM fields can exist spontaneously, or you have to accept that a BH can't make them either.

Which sort of wrong are you?

Who decides what is "anti-scientific".  You, or Dave?

Scientific ideas are not self-contradictory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.

No
I didn't claim anything about the early Universe.
Our scientists claim that the early Universe was in the size of a proton after the Bang.
They also claim that there was no matter just pure energy.
So, please show us how under those conditions, the EM could be created in order to set the pair process in less than 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.

The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.

This is incorrect.
You need electrically neutral metal plates for this process.
Without it spontaneously produces particle pairs won't work.

You do not need a pre-existing EM field to produce it.

Yes you do.

Spontaneous pair production just happens.

That is correct
So, the creation of the pair production is Spontaneous.
However, the EM must be there constantly.
Without it there is no pair production.

You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.

That explanation reminds me the Hawking radiation idea.
Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.
So, the Universe won't let you to borrow energy if there was no energy over there.
Hence, the EM energy Must be there before any sort of pair production activity.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 21:06:36
The pair production happens ONLY by EM.

No, it's spontaneous and your use of CAPITAL letters does not change that.

No
The "spontaneous" related to the pair production process - not to the EM. (as I have explained)

No.
Because there is another source of EM fields- the spontaneous production of particle / antiparticle pairs.

NO, NO, NO!
If you didn't understand it so far I really can't help you any more.

So you are saying that an uncharged BH can not produce any EM field.

No
Only rotatable BH/SMBH can produce EM.

A black hole also does not have metal plates or a dynamo.

Rotatable BH has dynamo and it generates EM.
Magnetar and Pulsar are perfect examples for objects that can generate EM.
We also know that our rotatable SMBH generates EM.

[charles1948]

Please stop it. You are wasting space on the Internet.

[Bored chemist]

I didn't claim anything about the early Universe.

You claimed that it had no particles  or photons in it.

in less than 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.

Why have you made up that number?
Wouldn't the first 10^-18 seconds still be considered as "early"?
Has anyone ever complained at you for being a billionth of a billionth of a second late?

This is incorrect.
You need electrically neutral metal plates for this process.
Without it spontaneously produces particle pairs won't work.

Again, you are saying that you need a microscope for bacteria to exist.

The Casimir effect is just a way to observe the particles.
They are produced anyway (otherwise you need to explain how the vacuum "knows" that it is between two plates in order to "switch on" the particle production.

Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.

Just plain wrong.##
It follows from the uncertainty principle.
If it takes a finite amount of time to measure how much energy you have then, for a shorter time, there is no way to say whether you have that much energy or not.

You might not like it, but that's the real universe.
It is, for example the explanation of the widths of spectral lines 9and a whole lot of other stuff too).

As I said.

It's well documented science.

Did you know that?

NO, NO, NO!

Yes.
The field is there.

Rotatable BH has dynamo and it generates EM.

Only if it has charge.
And unless you already had an EM field, you couldn't get a charge.
So your BH would be uncharged and, even if it rotated, it would not produce a magnetic field and, as I said

You either have to accept that you are wrong about the fact that EM fields can exist spontaneously, or you have to accept that a BH can't make them either.

Which sort of wrong are you?