[Bored chemist]

Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?

No
I keep explaining this. please pay attention.
You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.

How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?

There is no "scientist at Wiki"
Because "wiki" isn't  a place or an organisation which writes stuff. Wiki just provides a place for people to write things. That's the really amazing thing about it.

On the other hand, I am a guy who occasionally writes stuff for wiki.

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.

No, it is not.
Because the wiki page says WHY they usually need a nucleus there.
It is to fulfil a specific purpose- you need something with mass so that it can ensure that the conservation of momentum is maintained during the process.

So, while the usual "thing" with mass is the nucleus of an atom, it can actually be anything with mass.
If you understood basic science, you would understand that.

Simple question for you:
Why do you need a nucleus?
(And the answer is not "because Wiki says so".)

[Bored chemist]

It might help if you understood how Wikipedia works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.

Please prove it.
Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.

So, while the usual "thing" with mass is the nucleus of an atom, it can actually be anything with mass.
If you understood basic science, you would understand that.
Simple question for you:
Why do you need a nucleus?
(And the answer is not "because Wiki says so".)

Well, I'm quite sure that the pair production won't work with any sort of nearby mass particle as quark, other photon or even nucleus.
There is ONLY one possibility to get the pair production process from "Pure energy"
That process takes place around the event horizon of a BH/SMBH with pure EM capability & high gravity force.
The Pure Electromagnetic energy transforms the virtual pair into real new particle pair near the event horizon of that BH/SMBH.
Due to the impact of the Lorenz force one charged particle is directed inwards while the other opposite charged is ejected into the accretion disc.
We clearly see all the ejected new particles/photons at the accretion disc of the SMBH.
So, it is not imagination.
It is real - we clearly see it.
Unfortunately our scientists don't wish to accept the clear observation that they see.
They observe/trace the accretion discs of many nearby SMBH.
In all of them they have found that the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
In some of them they have also found the ejected ultra molecular jet stream.
They have never observed any falling star of gas into the accretion disc in any of those nearby SMBH.
However, they still hold their theory that the accretion disc is there due to falling stars
So, they want to force the Universe to work according to their theory.
Therefore, they insist that what they see in the accretion disc is due to falling stars/gas, while they have NEVER observed any falling star into the accretion disc (and they will never ever see any falling star).


In any case, our scientists didn't see any sort of pair creation from pure energy.
They even didn't see any sort of pair creation from a photon or gammas.
Please be aware that in the example which you had offered about the Hydrogen chamber, our scientists have used an Atom to collide with that chamber.
So please - when you raise the flag of science, you need to backup your understanding on real verification/observation.
Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.
So, why do you keep on with the imagination that:

You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.

Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.

[Bored chemist]

Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".

I thought I had but, it's easier to repeat myself than to check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Symmetry_and_conservation

It is real - we clearly see it.

We have never seen it.
We have never seen anything happen that close to a black hole.

Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.

Why do you need a nucleus?

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.

Why do you tell that lie?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:41:45
Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".

I thought I had but, it's easier to repeat myself than to check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Symmetry_and_conservation

Wow
Suddenly, Wiki is ok for you.
How could it be that Wiki is perfectly OK for you to justify your message, while it is forbidden for me to use them when it comes to justify my message?
That shows that you don't care about real science.
You only care about the BBT.

In any case, this article is all about momentum.
It doesn't give any support to your message/imagination that new particle pair process works by setting nearby mass - any mass.
Actually you have directed me to the electromagnetic section in that article:
"Electromagnetic
Particle in a field
In Maxwell's equations, the forces between particles are mediated by electric and magnetic fields. The electromagnetic force (Lorentz force) on a particle with charge q due to a combination of electric field E and magnetic field B is"
It is also stated:
"The quantity {\displaystyle V=q\mathbf {A} }{\displaystyle V=q\mathbf {A} } is sometimes called the potential momentum.[38][39][40] It is the momentum due to the interaction of the particle with the electromagnetic fields.]"
So, that by itself shows how important is the electromagnetic for the activity of the particle.
Therefore, it gives higher confidence to my explanation that EM is vital for the creation of a particle pair.

Conclusion:
1. It is pity that in one hand you are using wiki to qualify your message while on the other hand you disqualify wiki just because it contradicts your imagination.
2. We actually focus on the pair production process. So, you reject the real article about that process while you offer an article about a momentum that isn't directly connected to this discussion
3. In any case, this momentum article doesn't support your imagination of creating new particle pair due to nearby mass - any mass.

 

pair prodn2 .JPG (27.36 kB, 358x467 - viewed 1 times.)

This image is irrelevant without the whole article
If you wish to get my respond please offer the whole article.
However, why do you hide the source of that image?
That is one more example that you don't care about real science.

Why do you tell that lie?

Who really tells lie?
You wish to justify the BBT. Therefore you are using those tactics as hiding data, twisting information, reject wiki when it contradicts your imagination, position yourself above the science while you clearly contradict real science and disqualify the other person knowledge without any support.
Shame on you.

[Bored chemist]

Suddenly, Wiki is ok for you.

It always was.

How could it be that Wiki is perfectly OK for you to justify your message, while it is forbidden for me to use them when it comes to justify my message?

It's not forbidden. That is just more nonsense which you made up.
The problem is not that you quoted wiki. The problem is that you don't understand what they said.

In any case, this article is all about momentum.

That is correct.

Who really tells lie?

You said

Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.

and

Prove it by real observation

So I posted an annotated image of it.

However, why do you hide the source of that image?

Because it doesn't matter where it is from.
It's a picture of a high energy gamma ray undergoing pair formation.
That's what you asked for.

You keep saying that you need a nucleus to get pair production.
But you are wrong. You do not understand the process.
If you did, you could explain why...
And you keep failing to answer this

Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:57:11
Why do you need a nucleus?

So, each time you fail to answer it, you announce to the world that you do not know what you are talking about.

Why do you do that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 17:41:45
Prove it by real observation

So I posted an annotated image of it.

Well, do you understand the meaning of that image?
Let's look again
At the left side we see the while line of a scattered atomic electron.
Do you have and idea what is the meaning of scattered atomic electron?
Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:52:02
However, why do you hide the source of that image?

Because it doesn't matter where it is from.
It's a picture of a high energy gamma ray undergoing pair formation.
That's what you asked for.

No, you hide that information because you know that a request for a nearby Atom or Nucleus would knock down your imagination for the pair process after the Big Bang.

You keep saying that you need a nucleus to get pair production.
But you are wrong. You do not understand the process.
If you did, you could explain why...

It is not my request for a nearby nucleus to get pair production.
It was clearly stated at the wiki article about the pair process which you have rejected.
This image proves that the "Guy from wiki" was fully correct.
In any case, I'm quite sure that you know that a nearby Atom or nucleus is needed for that pair process.
Therefore, as you know that there was no Atom or nucleus after the Big Bang, it was very clear to you that the pair process can't work at the early Universe.
Hence, you hide the source of that image in order to confuse me with your lies.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 19:38:06
Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:57:11
Why do you need a nucleus?

Hence, you hide the source of that image in order to confuse me with your lies.

If pictures confuse you then you should give up pretending to be clever enough to understand science.

Also, I didn't lie.
What did I say that was not true?

This image proves that the "Guy from wiki" was fully correct.

No. it doesn't.

Well, do you understand the meaning of that image?
Let's look again
At the left side we see the while line of a scattered atomic electron.
Do you have and idea what is the meaning of scattered atomic electron?
Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.

OK, let's look at it.
Then we will see that there's a second pair production event from a different gamma.
In that case there is no scattered electron and the energy that went into the electron in the first case is carried by the produced pair in the second case.
That's why the tracks are less curved.
Now the point you were trying to make was that the scattered electron mean that you were right*.
Well, in the second case there is no scattered electron- which ... does not show that you were right.

And, as usual, if you understood the physics you wouldn't have made the stupid comment.

Why do you do it?


* this was wrong anyway but...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Then we will see that there's a second pair production event from a different gamma.
In that case there is no scattered electron and the energy that went into the electron in the first case is carried by the produced pair in the second case.
That's why the tracks are less curved.
Now the point you were trying to make was that the scattered electron mean that you were right*.
Well, in the second case there is no scattered electron- which ... does not show that you were right.

The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.
Therefore, without the scattered atomic electron we won't get the first pair or the second pair.
Hence, all of this activity of the pairs process is based on that scattered atomic electron.
You didn't reject the following explanation about the scattered atomic electron:

Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.

Hence, as a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into two pairs particles (or more pairs), then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.

Therefore, your following message was completely incorrect:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 14:28:35
Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?

No
I keep explaining this. please pay attention.
You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.

No,
You must have nucleus or Atom in order to get that scattered atomic electron for starting the pairs process.

If you wish to continue the discussion about your misunderstanding/twisted information, I demand to see the source for that image

A question for the Moderator/Manager of this forum:
Is it allowed in this site to hide the source of the data?
If not, would you kindly ask/force BC to discover the source for that image?

[Bored chemist]

The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.

That is impossible.
There is no track from one to the other.
If any particle which left the first interaction went on to cause the second, there would be a track.
Also the particles produced in the second interaction are moving faster than those from the first.
So, unless you can magically explain why they speed up, you are (once again) trying to break the law of conservation of energy.

Pleas do not post nonsense like that again.

Hence, as a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into two pairs particles (or more pairs), then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.

There are two events. In each case a single gamma is converted into a positron/ electron pair.
In one case (it is impossible to know which one happened first) an electron is scattered. In the second case no electron is scattered. This is why the pair come out with higher energy (as shown by the lower curvature). None is lost to an electron.

If not, would you kindly ask/force BC to discover the source for that image?

What difference will it make?

You must have nucleus or Atom in order to get that scattered atomic electron for starting the pairs process.

It is clear from the two events depicted that you do not always get a scattered electron.
So, once again.
Why do you think there needs to be a nearby nucleus?

I demand to see the source for that image

You are not in a position to make demands of me.
You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:58:20
The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.

That is impossible.
There is no track from one to the other.
If any particle which left the first interaction went on to cause the second, there would be a track.
Also the particles produced in the second interaction are moving faster than those from the first.
So, unless you can magically explain why they speed up, you are (once again) trying to break the law of conservation of energy.

Without the first pair, the second one won't move faster.
Therefore, as the second one is moving faster, it shows that it is fully connected to the first pair process.

If you still think that the second one isn't connected to the first one, then you have to prove that a pair process could work without that scattered atomic electron.
So it is your obligation to offer an image of the pair process without the scattered atomic electron.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:58:20
I demand to see the source for that image

You are not in a position to make demands of me.
You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.

Why are you so afraid to discover the source of the image that you have offered?
As you estimate that this image supports your imagination, why do you keep hiding its source?
What do you have to hide?
Could it be that you hide the source as you know that it contradicts your imagination while it fully supports Wiki message about the pair process?
I have no intention to look for that image at Google, while you clearly have its source.
Your personality is more important than your knowledge in science.
As long as you keep hiding the source of that image, you position yourself as unreliable person that is twisting the data

Why do you think there needs to be a nearby nucleus?

That was the clear explanation from wiki with regards to the pair process request.
You image is useless without its source and therefore you have failed to contradicts that explanation.
Hence, we all have to agree that a Nucleus or Atom is needed nearby for the pair process.
That by itself knocks out the BBT for good.

If you disagree with that, please discover the source for the image or stay away from my tread.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you so afraid to discover the source of the image that you have offered?

If I was afraid, I'd not have told you how to find it.
But I did.

You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.

So it's clear that I'm not afraid of you finding out.
So why did you say I was?

Without the first pair, the second one won't move faster.

Why?

Therefore, as the second one is moving faster, it shows that it is fully connected to the first pair process.

OK, what you are saying  is that if I kick a ball and it moves at 10 m/s then if I kick a ball and it hits another ball, both balls will move at more than 10 m/s

And that's nonsense.

You also failed to account for the lack of a trail from one event to the other.

So you are still very  wrong.

while you clearly have its source.

Actually, I don't. I just googled the thing I was looking for and copied the image. I didn't pay much attention to the source.
Please stop saying things that are not true.

If you still think that the second one isn't connected to the first one, then you have to prove that a pair process could work without that scattered atomic electron.

You have that the wrong way round.
Because the two events are independent and one of them does not have a scattered electron, I have shown that the scattered electron doesn't always happen.

If you want to say that the two events are related, you need to prove it. The evidence says they are not related.

Your personality is more important than your knowledge in science.

That's about as wrong as it is possible to get.

You image is useless without its source

I asked this before , and you failed to answer because you know that the answer makes you look foolish. So I'm asking again.

What difference will it make?

If you really thought that the source would make any difference, you would have tried to find it.
Why haven't you?
Are you not clever enough?

Hence, we all have to agree that a Nucleus or Atom is needed nearby for the pair process.

No.
We don't agree that.
And so I would like you to tell me why a nucleus or atom is needed.
I have asked this several times. You keep failing to answer. Is this because you are not clever enough?

That by itself knocks out the BBT for good.

That is absurd.
A well known theory in physics does not stand or fail depending on whether I tell you where I copied a picture from.
How could it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because the two events are independent and one of them does not have a scattered electron, I have shown that the scattered electron doesn't always happen.
If you want to say that the two events are related, you need to prove it. The evidence says they are not related.

Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.
In this image we clearly see that while one particle (electron) is moving to one side (left), the other particle (positron) is moving to the other side (right)
That is a direct outcome of Lorentz force on opposite particle charged (electron/positron) under EM filed.

Therefore, as the invisible gamma ray photon had been transformed into the first particle pair, there is good chance that due to the impact of Lorentz force on the first pair there was some change in the local EM filed. That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photon as we see in that image.
Therefore, they behave differently.

So, it is not the nearby mass that converts the gamma ray into the first pair particle or the second one.
It is all about the EM filed.

However, we have already agreed that there was no EM in the early Universe.
Therefore, this image is not relevant to your main idea that gamma ray photon could be transformed into the pair particles due to nearby mass (without EM).
I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.
Thanks for that image as it actually fully confirms my understanding. Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.
Hence, as there was no EM at the early Universe - not even a single pair could be created.

It is clear to you by now?

A well known theory in physics does not stand or fail depending on whether I tell you where I copied a picture from.
How could it?

With your help I have proved that the well known BBT theory is useless without EM.
So, many thanks for your great support!

[Bored chemist]

Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.

And we know, from observations like the Casimir effect, that electromagnetic fields appear spontaneously in space.

However, we have already agreed that there was no EM in the early Universe.

No we have not agreed that.
And we won't agree it because we know that there were always EM fields in the universe (see above).

Therefore, as the invisible gamma ray photon had been transformed into the first particle pair

Well, we don't know which one happened first. You are making an unjustified assumption but...
Once it has been converted into an electron/ positron pair, it is no longer there to exert an effect on anything else.

You are effectively saying that it has a ghost.

That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photon

That makes no sense. You can not say which one is first.
But even if your guess is right there is no mechanism for what you propose.
A weak EM field produced by the electron and positron is too small to affect the gamma photon.

So, it is not the nearby mass that converts the gamma ray into the first pair particle or the second one.

So, you are now saying that the guy who wrote the wiki article was wrong.

At least   you have learned something since you said this.

Is it real?
How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?

Now, since it is clear that I teach you things, why don't you accept that you do not know as much as I do?

I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.

No. You kept screaming at me that it was due to mass.

Thanks for that image as it actually fully confirms my understanding.

No it doesn't; you are still wrong.

Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.

Wrong and wrong.

Hence, as there was no EM at the early Universe -

There was.

not even a single pair could be created.

You just claimed that the universe does not exist.
Did you realise that?
Do you see how silly it is?

With your help I have proved that the well known BBT theory is useless without EM.

You have proved nothing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40
That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photon

That makes no sense. You can not say which one is first.
But even if your guess is right there is no mechanism for what you propose.
A weak EM field produced by the electron and positron is too small to affect the gamma photon.

Yes it is.
Actually, I fully agree with you that too weak EM field won't affect the gamma photon.
However, in this image we don't know the real amplitude of the EM.
So, if the two pair had been created over there it means that the EM was strong enough to process both pairs.
Please be aware that I actually estimate that the EM at the second pair was lower than the first pair.
So, it was strong enough to set the pair process, but its impact on Lorentz force was too weak.
Therefore, we see that the positron/electron moves slowly away from each other (while in the first one it was very strong and set the spiral shape).

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40
Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.

And we know, from observations like the Casimir effect, that electromagnetic fields appear spontaneously in space.

No, you have just confirmed that too weak EM won't set the pair process.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that the Casmir effect won't create the requested EM for that pair process.
You need real source for EM (as BH/SMBH)
Please also be aware that our BBT scientists claim that 99.999..99% from all the new particle pairs had been eliminated each other.
That proves that based on the BBT the Lorentz force was virtually zero.
Therefore, if lorentz force is zero the EM also must be zero based on the BBT.
So, how can you claim now for any sort of real EM immediately after the bang?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40
Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.

Wrong and wrong.

How could it be?
You have just confirmed that the EM is vital. Now you claim that it is not needed?
Please take a decision - do we need EM for the pair production or not?

If not - then you clearly don't have any valid prove for the idea that pair process can work without EM.
Remember - without EM there is no Lorentz force.
Without Lorentz force you can't split the electron from the positron
Without that splitting they will cancel each other before you would understand that the pair had been created.
So, without EM you won't get any indication for pair process activity.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40
not even a single pair could be created.

You just claimed that the universe does not exist.
Did you realise that?

The universe exists due to Einstein theory and not due to the BBT!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40
I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.

No. You kept screaming at me that it was due to mass.

Yes, mass it vital for the pair process.
EM by itself is not good enough. We also need strong gravity force.
Therefore, we also need mass (as a BH/SMBH).
So simple and so clear.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, mass it vital for the pair process.

Why?

(That's the third of fourth time I have asked)

The universe exists due to Einstein theory

No.
Because Einstein's theory has only existed since 1905, but the universe existed before that.

You have just confirmed that the EM is vital. Now you claim that it is not needed?

No. What I said was that pair production- which is spontaneous- as shown by the Casimir effect- means that there is always an EM field.

It isn't that the EM field  produces pairs. The pairs produce an EM field.

No, you have just confirmed that too weak EM won't set the pair process.

It doesn't need to. ((Virtual) Pair production can be spontaneous.

Please also be aware that our BBT scientists claim that 99.999..99% from all the new particle pairs had been eliminated each other.

As I have pointed out before, that problem is true for any mechanism for creating the universe - including the impossible one which you support.
So it's hardly worth mentioning.

If not - then you clearly don't have any valid prove for the idea that pair process can work without EM.

The Casimir effect shows that the virtual pair production just happens. You don't need a cause; you don't need and EM field.

However, in this image we don't know the real amplitude of the EM.

We have a good idea of what the EM field is. It is small enough not to affect the paths of the positrons and electrons. We also know there's a strong magnetic field - that's why the paths are spirals.

Please be aware that I actually estimate that the EM at the second pair was lower than the first pair.

So, you think   that, before we created and separated two charged particles the field was bigger than after we created a field by creating and separating two charged particles.

Do you understand why I think you are wrong?

So, how can you claim now for any sort of real EM immediately after the bang?

Same as always; I don't need to. It forms itself. The Casimir effect is proof of this happening today. If you think it wouldn't have happened in the early universe you need to explain why not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It isn't that the EM field  produces pairs. The pairs produce an EM field.

Wow
This is the most important message. Therefore, I will only focus on it.

So, you confirm that the pairs produce EM.
However, how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?
Let me use two examples:
1. Battery.
Do you know that after the creation of the battery it doesn't carry any electrical charge?
So, you must load the battery with electric charge in order to get that charged battery.
However, based on your imagination/approach you could claim that:
It isn't that the electricity produces the battery charged. The battery produces the electricity charge.

2. Watermelon
Do you know that the watermelon carry mostly water?
So based on your imagination/approach you could also claim that:
It isn't that the water is needed to produce the watermelon. The watermelon produces the water.

Is it real?
Don't you understand that as there is no way to get water in the watermelon without first investing water in that watermelon?
Hence, there is no way for "The pairs to produce an EM field" without first investing EM in this pair.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand basic elements in our real universe?
In other words - There is no way to get particles/pairs that carry EM without investing EM.

Sorry - how can you call yourself scientist with that nonsense?
It clearly shows that based on this approach - you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic knowledge in our real universe!!!

Actually, you had confirmed that photon is all about EM.

So, please read my lips:
Any particle/pair in the Universe had been started/created by EM
Every atom/molecular in our body had been created by EM.
Without real EM to start with - all the matter in our Universe won't be created.
If you still disagree with that - it is better for you to find better job in your life.

[Bored chemist]

Do you know that after the creation of the battery it doesn't carry any electrical charge?
So, you must load the battery with electric charge in order to get that charged battery.

Just plain wrong, as shown by this Children's science experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_battery

how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?

We do not know  how.
But we know that it happens.
That's how the Casimir effect is produced.

Do you understand that the experiment shows that it happens?

[Bored chemist]

you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic knowledge in our real universe!!!

That is very silly coming from the man who did not understand how a battery works, but tried to use it to proves something- based on his misunderstanding.

In other words - There is no way to get particles/pairs that carry EM without investing EM.

Sorry - how can you call yourself scientist with that nonsense?

Yes there is, the experiments prove it, and I call myself a scientist because I pay attention to what  the experiments tell us.
You should try it.