[Bored chemist]

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

Science learns from mistakes and is - in principle- self correcting even if one member of teh scientific community is nuts.

[charles1948]

Doesn't "peer-reviewing" mean that a scientist with a new idea, gets stopped from publishing.

[Kryptid]

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

I agree, but apparently it can't be helped as far as the site rules go.

Doesn't "peer-reviewing" mean that a scientist with a new idea, gets stopped from publishing.

No.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's try to agree on something:
1. Do you confirm that Photon is all about EM and without EM there are no photons (assuming that there are no other matter)?
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that based on the BBT theory there was no matter after the bang, only pure energy while the size/space of the Universe was at the proton size?
Yes or no?
3. Do you confirm that at that moment in the early universe stage, there were no EM and no matter at all?
Yes or no?
4. You claim that:

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.

No
You miss the whole point of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
"In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect is a physical force acting on the macroscopic boundaries of a confined space which arises from the quantum fluctuations of the field. It is named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, who predicted the effect for electromagnetic systems in 1948."

So, it is all about quantum fluctuations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons.
Hence, that quantum fluctuations are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons.
So, it is all about the energy that is locked in elementary particles as a photon
Therefore, we do not observe any pair particle creation in the open vacuum space as there is no EM over there.
The only location for pair production in our universe is around an object that generates EM as SMBH.
So, photon is all about EM. There is no way for the photon to be created in a vacuum without EM.
Therefore, all the photons that we see in the Universe come from galaxies that generates those photons by using their EM field.
There is no way to get photons from just empty space.
You need an object to generate the photons.
Therefore, empty vacuum space has no EM and it would never ever generate any photon.

5. In order to support your nonsense you had offered the idea of Vacuum_polarization

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 producers of virtual electron–positron pairs.

Please read this explanation carefully.
Do you understand English?
It is clearly stated:
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs"
Therefore, without the background electromagnetic field there is no vacuum polarization.
Is it clear to you.
Then it continues with:
"virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field"
Hence, the creation of the virtual electron–positron pairs changes the currents that generated the original electromagnetic field.
Therefore, without the background electromagnetic field there is no original electromagnetic field and no particle pair creation.
Conclusion:
As the BBT dosen't claim for magnets or EM due to the Bang, there is no way for it to have the requested EM to generate any photon or particle pair.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:50:08
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

We clearly know that our SMBH has ultra high EM.
We observe that EM power by the molecular jet stream that is boosted at 0/8c from its magnetic poles.
Without EM there is no way to get that molecular jet stream that moves in the opposite direction with regards to the SMBH mighty gravity force - up to 27,000 LY.
Why our scientists don't even try to calculate what kind of EM is needed for this activity.
So, you can play with your imagination about EM and charge as much as you wish
However, our SMBH tells us that it is has ultra EM field (even if you don't like it)

[Bored chemist]

. Do you confirm that Photon is all about EM and without EM there are no photons (assuming that there are no other matter)?
Yes or No?

Photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.
This is shown to be true by things like the Casimir effect.

2. Do you confirm that based on the BBT theory there was no matter after the bang, only pure energy while the size/space of the Universe was at the proton size?
Yes or no?

Yes

3. Do you confirm that at that moment in the early universe stage, there were no EM and no matter at all?
Yes or no?

No.
Because the universe spontaneously generates photons and particle pairs which give rise to EM fields.

This has been proven to be true by actual experiments .
It is still true, even if you say that it isn't  AND USE CAPITAL LETTERS.

They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields

That's correct.

If you start with a field that is zero- which is what you claim for the very early universe and then you introduce a fluctuation in that field it musty stop being zero.
And if the field stops being zero then you have an EM field.

As I said.
This isn't new- it is just that you do not understand it.

So, the rest of your post is based on a mistake and there's no point in my commenting on it.
.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.
This is shown to be true by things like the Casimir effect.

Let's assume that this idea is correct.
Let's assume that photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.
So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?
If that is correct, then why our Universe is so dark while you and our BBT scientists are so sure that photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum at any location in the Universe- with or without EM?

[Bored chemist]

Let's assume that this idea is correct.

OK

Everything that BC says is correct.

So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?

Well, for a start, nobody ever said that there were any of them.
Also because they are virtual photons.
They don't last very long.
The chance of one reaching your eye before it annihilates itself is very small.

That's why it takes quite delicate work like the Casimir effect experiment to show that they exist.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:02:30
So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?

Well, for a start, nobody ever said that there were any of them.
Also because they are virtual photons.
They don't last very long.
The chance of one reaching your eye before it annihilates itself is very small.

Ok
Let's assume agin that this idea is correct.
However, I hope that you agree that the limitations of annihilations and virtual particles was valid in the early universe as it is valid today and the the idea of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum is also valid today as it was valid in the early Universe.
Never the less, somehow in the early universe trillions over trillions of virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be bigger by trillions over trillions times.
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?

[Bored chemist]

Ok
Let's assume agin that this idea is correct.

It is not an assumption.
It has been tested.

[Bored chemist]

However, I hope that you agree that the limitations of annihilations and virtual particles was valid in the early universe as it is valid today and the the idea of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum is also valid today as it was valid in the early Universe.

It isn't me who needs to "agree" that.
I already said it.

We were waiting for you to catch up.

[Bored chemist]

So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?

Do you remember when you were banging on about mass?
How you went on and on about the fact that you need mass to get pair production?
And eventually you came too understand that the energy in the universe has mass and so itcould balance the momentum conservation?

Do you remember that?

OK, now do you think that, in the vacuum of space, there is much mass?

Presumably you now see that in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.

Now the interesting thing here is that I didn't tell you anything new when I said that you need mass and most of space is empty.
You already knew that you need mass for pair production, and you know that space hasn't got much mass in it.


So why didn't you work our the answer for yourself?

Is it because you really don't understand the science?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?

Do you remember when you were banging on about mass?
How you went on and on about the fact that you need mass to get pair production?
And eventually you came too understand that the energy in the universe has mass and so itcould balance the momentum conservation?
Do you remember that?
OK, now do you think that, in the vacuum of space, there is much mass?
Presumably you now see that in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.
Now the interesting thing here is that I didn't tell you anything new when I said that you need mass and most of space is empty.
You already knew that you need mass for pair production, and you know that space hasn't got much mass in it.
So why didn't you work our the answer for yourself?
Is it because you really don't understand the science?

This answer shows that you don't have a clue what should be the answer to my question.
You clearly don't know why in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum.

You also have stated:

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.

But again, you don't know why that idea of Virtual_particle could only work for the BBT.

So, you keep protecting the BBT while you know that you don't know why all your ideas could only work for the BBT

Sorry, you don't represent real science.
You only protect unrealistic and irrelevant theory.
Why is it?

[Bored chemist]

This answer shows that you don't have a clue what should be the answer to my question.

OK what you said was full of meaningless padding.
.

Never the less, somehow in the early universe trillions over trillions of virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be bigger by trillions over trillions times.
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?

Now, let's look at what you said.
Well, you kept using the phrase " trillions over trillions" as if it meant something important.
Obviously a trillion over a trillion is 1.
But you seem to think that it means a large number.

I suggest you learn maths but...

so, let's take that error out.
"Never the less, somehow in the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be a lot bigger .
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger   than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"

And then we can look at this phrase.
"Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be a lot bigger ."
Well, that's silly. Everyone knows that it is a lot bigger.

So we might as well drop that bit too.

And then we can look at this
"Never the less, somehow in the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact."
Well, for a start nevertheless is one word and it has a meaning which doesn't apply here. So we can drop it. And the "somehow" is redundant too.

So, when ewe take out the trash, your question seems to be

"In the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.


So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"

Have I understood it correctly?

Because, if I have the answer is simple.
This bit is wrong.
" therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger,"

Because the likelihood of a photon pair being created is dependent on the presence of a nearby mass to carry the momentum.
And

in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.

So, you see, I did answer your question.
Or, at least I think I did but it's hard to tell because you buried the question in a whole lot of nonsense about trillions divided by trillions and such.

[Bored chemist]

This

So, you keep protecting the BBT while you know that you don't know why all your ideas could only work for the BBT

also does not make sense.

I missed the big bang by about 14 billion years; I was born too late.
So if I see evidence of, for example, pair production or virtual photons then they must also apply to the universe today.
And I have seen evidence of those things.
So I see that they work in the universe today.
So it is clearly untrue that these "ideas could only work for the BBT".
They still happen today.

[Bored chemist]

You only protect unrealistic and irrelevant theory.

Everything I have presented is mainstream science, backed by evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"
Have I understood it correctly?

Ok
Once you understand the question, let's move to your reply:
Let's focus on each one and verify if it can work:
1. The mass in our current Universe

in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.

Our current Universe is full with mass. Even if you ignore all the stars and galaxies, it is still full with ISM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
"In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field."
"In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm3."
So, how can you claim that there is not enough real mass in our current Universe?

2. Nearby mass for the pair photon production process:

Because the likelihood of a photon pair being created is dependent on the presence of a nearby mass to carry the momentum.

Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the bang. Our scientists also do not claim for real mass immediately after the bang. Therefore, even if the pure energy of the Big Bang represents/sets infinite virtual photon pairs, how could those virtual photons converted to real photons while there is no real nearby mass to start with.
I would like to remind you that based on the BBT the first Hydrogen nucleus had been created 380 MY after the bang.
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus"

So, it is not just about a nearby mass as a quark or some other photon. You need real nucleus.
As there were clearly no real nucleus after the bang while our current Universe is full with nucleus then Would you kindly try to improve your answer for the following question:

How could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created when there was not even one nucleus at that time, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and it is full with ISM & nucleus, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"

[Bored chemist]

Our current Universe is full with mass.

No, it is not.
If it was, it would be solid (actually, it would collapse, but that's hardly the point.

"In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3).

OK, let's look at what that means,
Most of the matter in the universe is hydrogen.
A hydrogen atom has a volume of about 6E-31 metres cubed
And you say that space contains about 1 million molecules per cm3. (Which is wrong, because most of the particles are atoms, rather than molecules, but never mind)

1 million per cm ^3 means a million million per metre cubed.
With a total volume of 10^-19 m^3
So in a cubic metre of space there is about 0.0000000000000000006 cubic metres of stuff and the other 99.99999999999999994% is empty space.

Do you see that sticking to your antiscientific ideas  means that you have to say that a thing is full when you know it is 99.99999999999999994% empty?
How stupid do you think that makes you look?

So, how can you claim that there is not enough real mass in our current Universe?

I claim it because, as a moment's thought would have told you, it is true.

However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:

That still isn't true.
The fact that the guy who wrote the wiki page didn't consider the fact that, in the primordial universe, you didn't need (or have) nuclei is beside the point.
I already explained this to you. It would be better if you paid attention.
You need to have something that lets you comply with the conservation of momentum, but that can be a photon.
Since the universe was hot, there were lots of photons. In particular there were lots of photons with very high energies.
Since then the universe has cooled, so there are fewer of those.
That's another part of the reason why photon pair production is now rarely observed.

You need real nucleus.

No, you just don't.
If you disagree; prove it.
It's not enough to say "Wiki says" when Wiki isn't discussing the early universe.

How could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created when there was not even one nucleus at that time, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger

Because you don't understand science, you seem to think that making it bigger makes it easier to make particles.
That's completely the wrong way round.

Because it is bigger, it is cooler.
And so there are fewer very high energy photons.
So they can't be converted to real particles, also they are, on average, much further away from any mass.

So you keep saying "but the universe is bigger , so there should be more..."
But in fact, precisely because the universe is bigger, there should be fewer.

Why don't  you go and learn the science?

[Elizabeth Bruning]

I have been asking this question for a long time, I studied literature but I could not get to the bottom of the truth, thanks for the question, I read the comments above, it became more clear

[Bored chemist]

I studied literature

It's a pity the OP didn't do the same as the spammer.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:56
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:

That still isn't true.
The fact that the guy who wrote the wiki page didn't consider the fact that, in the primordial universe, you didn't need (or have) nuclei is beside the point.
I already explained this to you. It would be better if you paid attention.
You need to have something that lets you comply with the conservation of momentum, but that can be a photon.
Since the universe was hot, there were lots of photons. In particular there were lots of photons with very high energies.
Since then the universe has cooled, so there are fewer of those.
That's another part of the reason why photon pair production is now rarely observed.

Is it real?
How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?
We discuss on the pair production process.
What's wrong with the following article?

However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus"
So, it is not just about a nearby mass as a quark or some other photon. You need real nucleus.

As you don't agree with the idea of a "near a nucleus", it is your obligation to offer other article that could support this understanding.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:56
You need real nucleus.

No, you just don't.
If you disagree; prove it.
It's not enough to say "Wiki says" when Wiki isn't discussing the early universe.

Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?
However, pair particle production is a well known process. It should work exactly the same in any phase of the Universe age including the early Universe.
How can we bypass that process for the early universe?
If you wish to present real science, you have to use real science knowledge about that pair creation.
So far you have totally failed to backup your understanding about the pair creation process at the early Universe by real science.
You claim that in the early universe in order to convert the virtual photons into real photons a nearby mass is needed.
Based on wiki, that mass must be nucleus.
However, before the bang there was no mass at all.
So would you kindly offer an article for pair creation that could backup your understanding for converting virtual photons pair to real photons without any nearby nucleus or mass to start with.