[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:04:32
how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?

We do not know  how.

Sorry - if you do not know than please stop all your nonsense.

But we know that it happens
That's how the Casimir effect is produced.
Do you understand that the experiment shows that it happens?

As you know that it happens - then please prove it.
Based on the BBT, the space size the early Universe was at the size of Proton.
So, what is the EM which is expected from the Casimir effect in that proton size (Let's call it EM-PZ)?
As you know that it happens and as you claim for excellent understanding and experiments knowledge, are you sure that this EM-PZ magnitude( at the proton size) could generate the entire photons and the invisible gamma ray photons that were needed for the creation of all the galaxies and stars in our whole Universe?

the experiments prove it, and I call myself a scientist because I pay attention to what  the experiments tell us.

If so, would you kindly estimate the EM in our Milky Way galaxy (let's call it EM-MW)?
Then, multiply the EM-MW by 400 Billions (the estimated galaxies only in the visible Universe EM-VU)
Once you have that EM-VU, please use your great Knowledge and experiments to show how the Casimir effect in a proton size EM-PZ should be equal or even higher than this EM-VU.

Good Luck for you and for all the great BBT scientists.

[Bored chemist]

Do you realise that, once the intrinsic variations in the EM flied produce a single particle, that particle can, in turn promote the conversion of gamma rays to particles as a cascade until essentially all the high energy gammas are gone?

So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.
So most of the stuff you posted was a waste of time.

It would be better for you to invest time learning science than to squander it writing nonsense.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you realise that, once the intrinsic variations in the EM flied produce a single particle, that particle can, in turn promote the conversion of gamma rays to particles as a cascade until essentially all the high energy gammas are gone?
So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.

Wow
You are very creative person.
For any obstacle that I offer, you highlight new idea.
So, now you confirm that the process of creation must be a cascade-able process.
You also add that the Casimir EM field is spontaneous.
That is a clear indication that you fully understand that your "brilliant" idea for the Casimir affect EM is spontaneous and at the maximum it might generate the very limited EM energy.
Therefore, you try to convince yourself that this Limited EM energy is just needed to transform the first gamma ray photon to real pair.

So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.

However, somehow you "forgot" that you also need to advice how all of those Photons/gamma rays had been created at the first stage?
I would like to remind you that you are the one that have told us about the key process of converting the first Virtual photons to real photons in our early universe.
So how can you suddenly start your BBT when all the gamma rays for the entire Universe is already there waiting for that first pair process to start the cascade imaginary process?

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please:
1. Tell us how all the Virtual Photons for our entire Universe had been converted to real photons at the first stage after the bang while there only be some very limited EM spontaneous Energy due to Casimir affect - Please don't forget that photon is all about EM.
2. Tell us how those photons have got the ultra energy to be converted into Gamma ray photons that are needed for the entire Universe.
3. Please explain how a single pair of particle could generate the whole matter in our Universe in less than 10^-12 of a second.

Sorry, you don't represent science as there is no science in the BBT.
You just wish to hold the BBT and I have no clue why that unrealistic theory is it so important for you.

[Bored chemist]

For any obstacle that I offer, you highlight new idea.

None of the ideas I have put forward have been new.
The Casimir effect was deduced in 1948 and experimentally measured in 1997
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5

The problem is not that I am coming up with new stuff.
The problem is that you do not understand the old stuff.

Therefore, you try to convince yourself that this Limited EM energy is just needed to transform the first gamma ray photon to real pair.

The energy is supplied by the gamma particle, not the EM field.
So that's another misunderstanding on your part.

However, somehow you "forgot" that you also need to advice how all of those Photons/gamma rays had been created at the first stage?

No
We are all still waiting for you to answer the other side of that.
There was a lot of energy in the newly created universe.
If it wasn't in the form of photons, what form was it in?
It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall.

So- as I asked before (and, as usual with difficult questions-, you didn't answer).
What form was the energy in, if not photons?

I have no clue why that unrealistic theory is it so important for you.

That's an ironic comment from someone who spent ages trying to argue in favour of a model which misinterpreted the Hawking radiation and used a breach of the conservation laws to show something which was known to be false since Olber pointed it out.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We are all still waiting for you to answer the other side of that.
There was a lot of energy in the newly created universe.
If it wasn't in the form of photons, what form was it in?
It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall.

So- as I asked before (and, as usual with difficult questions-, you didn't answer).
What form was the energy in, if not photons?

Well, I do not recall that question:.
So, let's try to understand the real meaning of the BBT "pure energy"
At least you confirm that:
"It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall."

However, you claim that it can generate Photons.
So let's try to understand what is photon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
"The photon (Greek: φῶς, phōs, light) is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force."
"according to VMD, the photon is a superposition of the pure electromagnetic photon which interacts only with electric charges and vector mesons"
Therefore, Photon is all about EM and ONLY about EM.
As you don't like it - it is your personal problem.

Therefore, as the BBT pure energy has no EM - it can't generate any sort of particle that carries EM.
Therefore, It can't generate even a single Photon or energetic photon as Gamma ray.
Is it clear to you by now?

So, the whole story of the Big Bang is just a big nonsense.

It's better for you to focus on the real science proves that you have offered as Casimir affect.

The Casimir effect was deduced in 1948 and experimentally measured in 1997
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5

That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.

the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.

As the space of our Universe is (and always was) INFINITE, then it is quite clear that somehow that spontaneous EM fields could create some spontaneous new particles/photons.

Once you agree with that - you confirm Einstein theory.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant):"

Hence, based on that YOUR Casimir affect and Einstein cosmological constant, new particles are created constantly in order for the overall density of matter to stay constant.
No need Big Bang or Small bang.
Just a steady Universe that generates new particles forever and ever.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I do not recall that question:.

Then you need to wrok on your memory.

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

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

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/01/2021 05:21:30
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.
Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.
It is.

You didn't even answer my point which proves that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/01/2021 08:48:07
What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.

[Bored chemist]

That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.

No.
It does not create the field.
I already explained this.

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.

Please try to pay attention.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/02/2021 16:06:21
That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.

No.
It does not create the field.

Wow

You act as a liquid - drifting from one side to the other and back forward.
So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please

[Bored chemist]

You act as a liquid - drifting from one side to the other and back forward.

If I do, it's because I'm reacting to you going off in every direction but the truth.

So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please

If you want a single word answer, you need to ask a better question.
That one is like asking me "is a meal salad?".

The best answer I can give in one word is "maybe".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:42:45
So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please

If you want a single word answer, you need to ask a better question.
That one is like asking me "is a meal salad?".

The best answer I can give in one word is "maybe".

The question was very clear.
You could answer by:
No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy"
Or
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy"

However, you don't want to offer a direct answer as you probably know that any answer might work against the BBT.
Therefore, you prefer the "Maybe"
That answer shows that you wish to keep yourself at liquid state - as I have already explained..
This "maybe" proves that you can't protect the BBT any more as it is a useless theory.

[Bored chemist]

OK, let's see why you are wrong.
The energy present in the early universe would have been in a number of forms.
Some will have been EM and some will not.

And your question was
"Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?"
And the answer is that part of it was, but not all of it.

So, it's like asking "Do you claim that the "Pure BBT meal" is EM Salad?"
Part of the meal is salad, but not all of it.
So you really can't give a yes or no answer.

So this bit of your ramblings

However, you don't want to offer a direct answer as you probably know that any answer might work against the BBT.
Therefore, you prefer the "Maybe"
That answer shows that you wish to keep yourself at liquid state - as I have already explained..
This "maybe" proves that you can't protect the BBT any more as it is a useless theory.

Is nonsense  built on your lack of understanding.

It gets worse
OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.

So, do you see why your question makes no sense?

[Bored chemist]

You could answer by:
No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy"
Or
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy"

You missed the obvious
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it.

So I can't say
"No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy""
(because there is some)
And I can't say "
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy""
(because not all of it is)


This isn't even a problem of physics.
You lack a basic understanding of logic.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.

Is it science or believe?
Do you mean that the pure BBT energy includes all the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one?
If so, why they didn't call it "pure 4 fundamental forces of nature"
Why do they call it Pure energy while the meaning is the 4 fundamental forces of nature "?

This isn't even a problem of physics
You lack a basic understanding of logic.

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?
So, only the BBT believers are clever enough to understand how the BBT really works while all the others (especially me) have a severe lack of basic understanding?

Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it

As a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?

[Bored chemist]

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?

No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.


Do you understand that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?

No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?

I clearly understand that you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real meaning of "Pure BBT energy".
Therefore, it is much more convenient for you to claim that it is my understanding problem while you have totally got lost with a simple question.
If you can't even know if the answer is yes or no then how do you know that your "believe" is correct or incorrect?
There is no "maybe" or "the answer is neither yes nor no" in real science.
How do you know for sure that the BBT is correct with that kind of "knowledge"?
If it is "maybe" then maybe your BBT understanding is incorrect while Einstein understanding is correct.
You hold the "Maybe" and the twisted idea that "the answer is neither yes nor no" just to keep yourself at liquid state and claim for the other misunderstanding.
What a great tactics!!!

As a person that raises the flag of "understanding" and "logic" - you must answer the following question:

As a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?

If you can't answer that simple question then I have no interest in your nonsense. Please stay away from my tread.
It is very logic that you (and all the BBT scientists together) have no clue about the real meaning of that "pure BBT energy" and therefore the BBT should be set in the garbage forever and ever.

It's the time to take the astronomy from you and from all the BBT science community.
You don't carry a flag of science. You only carry a flag of BBT.
As there is no science in the BBT then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists should take this flag and stay home.

Let's open Einstein theory about our real Universe!
Let's understand why Einstein had rejected the BBT and what is the real universe according to his vision.

[Bored chemist]

One thing at a time.

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?

No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.


Do you understand that?

[puppypower]

The biggest problem with BB science of today, is it does not fully take into account the implications of the second law. This conceptual problem renders the theoretical details that came afterward,  moot. If you build on a poor foundation, any house of knowledge will eventually collapse under its own weight. I am tied of waiting until then, to let situation correct itself. I am being proactive.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While an increase in entropy absorbs energy and heat. We can all accept this. What this implies is that reusable energy is being constantly lost by the universe, into increasing entropy. Any retrieval of this lost energy, within entropy, will take more energy than you get back. 

The implication is there is an accumulating pool of energy, associated with entropy, that is being lost by the universe in terms of reuse. We can retrieve this energy, in part, but not in whole, due to the second law. Another implication is the universe cannot be cyclic, since that would violate the second law. A cyclic universe would need more energy than we started with. We do not have enough left over useable energy to both reverse both matter/energy and all the entropy, to make the universe a cyclic event.

I also believe in energy conservation, so I would expect that the energy within the increasing entropy is conserved, but not in a form that is fully reusable by the universe. I call this energy that is lost to entropy, dead poll energy, since it sort of dead to the universe. However, it nevertheless is part of the universal energy balance. It appears to be connected to information of things from the past, associate with the action of the second law. That is my best guess.

Entropy is a measurable variable, even if the concept of entropy is nebulous and hard to define. It ca be measured in a black box. There are tables for entropy values in the CRC. Entropy experiments and the data, proved that entropy was a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter, such as water at OC and 1 atmosphere, there is a consistently measured entropy. All labs, doing experiments, from any direction, back to 0C and 1 atmosphere water, will have the same exact measured value. These very specific states; entropy based memories, are connected to the dead pool memories; ghosts of the past.

Ice first formed long ago in the universe after the first stars began to fusion.  This ice state can more easily happen again, in the present, since the memory of this state persists in time; conserved dead pool energy. Say we wanted to fully reverse the second law, and get rid of the specific dead pool memory associated with ice, by universally reversing that entropy state. This is not possible. It is a lingering foundation, from times gone, that can be transformed and recycled, but not destroyed, due to dead pool energy conservation.

If you look at life on earth and DNA, life no longer spontaneously appears on the earth, from scratch, as it appears to have had, in the beginning of life. This is expected since the useable energy and dead pool memories are different now than a billion years ago. However, within the DNA are universal entropic states, that were part of times gone by. This does not mean we will never make life in the lab, but it does mean, we will need to use more energy than expected, to make up for the higher present day entropy and lower universal useable energy. This is why we need to look into water and the binary entropic state nature of hydrogen bonding. We can flit the binary switches to an earlier time.

Particle formation in the early universe, also started with lower entropy and much higher energy than the present. Modern lab data is may not be appropriate. We do add energy in particle accelerators, but we cannot lower the entropy back toward zero to be realistic. We generate a modern phase, based on modern day dead pool energy values.

The current theoretical foundation fails on the second law and should be avoided unless one is writing fiction. This has been pointed out by me on several occasions, but physics has not changed course. Common sense is not important, if you are not in the physics club. This is why I often appear anti-science, It is really due to being anti-swamp science. Physics is the most arrogant science and pride comes before the fall.

[puppypower]

My last post was getting long, but I wanted to add another piece of  food for thought. Say we were in the beginning of the BB, when entropy was quite low. There are very few dead pool memories and things are more open, in terms of possible states, unhindered by the lingering dead pool memories of the past. Particles formation will not just snap into quarks, since there is little in the way of lingering deal pool memory capacitance, yet. This will only occur, later, as the ghosts of the past accumulate; second law and dead pool energy, and start to differentiate in terms of steady state; top of the dead pool memory bell curve for particles.

[Bored chemist]

I also believe in energy conservation,

Please explain it to Dave.

The biggest problem with BB science of today, is it does not fully take into account the implications of the second law.

Yes it does.
The relevant ideas are summarised here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

My last post was getting long, but I wanted to add another piece of  food for thought. Say we were in the beginning of the BB, when entropy was quite low. There are very few dead pool memories and things are more open, in terms of possible states, unhindered by the lingering dead pool memories of the past. Particles formation will not just snap into quarks, since there is little in the way of lingering deal pool memory capacitance, yet. This will only occur, later, as the ghosts of the past accumulate; second law and dead pool energy, and start to differentiate in terms of steady state; top of the dead pool memory bell curve for particles.

I think you forgot to make a point.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

One thing at a time.

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?

No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?

You have already got the following answer:

Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?

No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?

I clearly understand that you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real meaning of "Pure BBT energy".
Therefore, it is much more convenient for you to claim that it is my understanding problem while you have totally got lost with a simple question.
If you can't even know if the answer is yes or no then how do you know that your "believe" is correct or incorrect?
There is no "maybe" or "the answer is neither yes nor no" in real science.
How do you know for sure that the BBT is correct with that kind of "knowledge"?
If it is "maybe" then maybe your BBT understanding is incorrect while Einstein understanding is correct.
You hold the "Maybe" and the twisted idea that "the answer is neither yes nor no" just to keep yourself at liquid state and claim for the other misunderstanding.
What a great tactics!!!

As a person that raises the flag of "understanding" and "logic" - you must answer the following question:

As a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?

If you can't answer that simple question then I have no interest in your nonsense. Please stay away from my tread.
It is very logic that you (and all the BBT scientists together) have no clue about the real meaning of that "pure BBT energy" and therefore the BBT should be set in the garbage forever and ever.

It's the time to take the astronomy from you and from all the BBT science community.
You don't carry a flag of science. You only carry a flag of BBT.
As there is no science in the BBT then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists should take this flag and stay home.

Let's open Einstein theory about our real Universe!
Let's understand why Einstein had rejected the BBT and what is the real universe according to his vision.

The BBT is not relevant any more due to the following:
Each photon and each gamma is all about EM.
Each Quark, each Particle, Each Atom and each molecular is all about EM.
The pair production process can't work without EM.
There is no way to split the pair without EM.

Therefore, all the matter that we see in our universe is all about EM.
Every cell in our body won't be there without EM.
So, there is no room for "neither yes nor no" or "maybe" when it comes to EM.
EM MUST be there for any sort of pair creation.
The Pure BBT energy by itself won't create even one photon or one quark without EM.

Do you understand that?

If you still don't understand (or actually, do not wish to understand) - then it is your personal problem!!!