[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?

Yes Or No
Just single word please

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.

The answer must be YES, YES ....YES.
There is no way to get even a single photon without EM.

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!!!

The pure BBT energy is just a useless energy without EM
1. Photon - It is all about EM
Hence, without EM that pure energy won't be able to generate even one photon
2. Gamma Photon - Even if there was a photon at the early Universe, that photon is useless as only Gamma photon could be used for the pair process. In order to convert Photon to Gamma photon EM is needed
Hence, without EM there is no Gamma photon.
3. Pair process from gamma - Even if there was Gamma photon it is still useless as without EM there is no way to set the pair process.
4. Annihilation - Even if there was a pair process, it is useless without Lorentz force that is needed to split between the opposite charged particles pair in order to prevent the annihilation process.
However, Lorentz force can only work under EM. Therefore, without EM there is no Lorentz force and there is no way to eliminate the annihilation process.

Therefore if the pure BBT energy is not EM energy, then this pure imagination energy won't generate even one single photon, quark or particle.
So, with regards the answer for the EM request, the answer MUST be: Yes, Yes..Yes, as there is no room for "neither yes nor no"

Do you finely understand that?

I'm quite sure that you would continue with your nonsense. As a good BBT scientist you are not fully connected to physics and/or logic. For you and for all the science community -  BBT is all about science and logic?

Actually, the science community should offer a Nobel prize for this discovery.
However, as this community is all about BBT, I really do not see any option for that even if you all know by 100% that this BBT contradicts the real science.

Einstein had already stated:
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

That is the key element that you are using in order to hold the BBT.

One day - you all would understand that after all Einstein was fully correct as he had rejected the BBT.
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)

So, the noble prize is not for me - it is for Einstein.
I only carry his voice.

[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?

Yes Or No
Just single word please

[charles1948]

If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.

They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.

To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style.  Just put your points over punchily..

[Bored chemist]

If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.

They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.

To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style.  Just put your points over punchily..

An even more effective way to shorten it would be if Dave actually remembered what had been said before, and didn't need to be reminded.
It would also help if he learned to answer points without repeated reminders but...
thus far, he's too rude to actually follow the rules and  do that so.

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?

Yes Or No
Just single word please

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.
They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.
To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style.  Just put your points over punchily..

The point is very clear:

There is no way to create any sort of particle without EM.
As there were no Electro Magnets or Dynamos at the early Universe - there was clearly no EM in that Universe to create even one real particle.

Do you need some more punchily points?

Conclusion:
The BBT is useless as Einstein had also clearly stated that the BBT is not realistic.

Unfortunately, BC can't understand/accept that simple message.
What about you? 
I hope that you agree that this message "contains valuable and worthwhile material".

What about all the other people that read this thread?

[Bored chemist]

The point is very clear:

There is no way to create any sort of particle without EM.
As there were no Electro Magnets or Dynamos at the early Universe - there was clearly no EM in that Universe to create even one real particle.

The "point" is also very wrong.
The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.

So  there were EM fields in the early universe.

Unfortunately, Dave doesn't understand this or, can't accept it because it shows that he is wrong
It is, however, well established physics- having been checked by lab experiments in 1997
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5

[Bored chemist]

Conclusion:
The BBT is useless as Einstein had also clearly stated that the BBT is not realistic.

That's not a conclusion it's an assertion of a logical fallacy.
Dave does not have a strong enogh grasp of logic to see that it's a problem.

Also Dave's lack of the basics of logic means that he doesn't understand that some questions can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no".

For example, "Is a ( a typical, so- called Victoria sponge) cake made from eggs?"

If you say yes then I will say "But what about the flour sugar and butter"
If you say "no" I will say " Well good luck making a cake without them".
So both answers- yes or no- are plainly wrong.

But Dave doesn't realise this.
He doesn't recognise that the right answer might be "partly".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Also Dave's lack of the basics of logic means that he doesn't understand that some questions can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no".
For example, "Is a ( a typical, so- called Victoria sponge) cake made from eggs?"
If you say yes then I will say "But what about the flour sugar and butter"
If you say "no" I will say " Well good luck making a cake without them".
So both answers- yes or no- are plainly wro

Let me start with this example.
There are many kinds of cakes. Some with eggs and some without.
Therefore, in this case your "maybe" is perfectly ok.
So, as the eggs are not vital for the cake, the answer might be yes or no.
However we discuss about photon.
Based on the data - Photon is all about EM.
So, can we set a photon while there is no matter and no EM?

You have already confirmed that some of the BBT energy must be EM:

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

In your following message you reconfirm the message that there were EM fields in the early universe.

The "point" is also very wrong.
The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So  there were EM fields in the early universe.

However, somehow you don't want to answer my following question:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:26:30
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it

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%?

Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?

Let's reuse your cake example:
However, instead of asking for the eggs in the cake, let's ask about the ratio between the dry ingredients to the wet ingredients in the cake.
Do you agree that there must be some minimal ratio between the wet ingredients to the dry in a cake?
So, why is it so difficult to inform the minimal percentage of the EM energy in the BBT energy?

 

[Bored chemist]

There are many kinds of cakes.

And the bright readers will recognise that's why I specified

a typical, so- called Victoria sponge

However we discuss about photon.

That's just not true, is it?
We were talking about the energy present shortly after the BB.
"

1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No

"


Why did you try to pretend that you had asked a different question?
Is it because you realise that your original question was stupid and you wish you had asked a better one?

Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?

because I wasn't there at the time.

However, I did actually answer your question; it's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to understand it.

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?

Shortly after the BB that energy split into the different forces we see today.
I'm guessing that the recipe might, like the cake, be roughly equal proportions of all 4 ingredients.
That would be consistent with symmetry and the equipartition principle.

What I don't see is how you think it matters.
I understand the physics, and I don't see how it matters.
So I'm going to suggest 25% as the best available answer.
You don't understand the physics and think it does matter.
So, I predict that you are about to say something wrong about it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:33:28
Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?

because I wasn't there at the time.

Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.

So I'm going to suggest 25% as the best available answer.

How do you get to this percentage?
Do you mean that the BBT Energy comes with 75% as pure energy and 25% as EM Energy or the BBT energy comes as 100% pure energy while the Casimir effect of the early universe adds the other 25%?
If you (and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know - then your BBT theory is useless.

However, I did actually answer your question; it's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to understand it.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:23:28
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?

Shortly after the BB that energy split into the different forces we see today.
I'm guessing that the recipe might, like the cake, be roughly equal proportions of all 4 ingredients.
That would be consistent with symmetry and the equipartition principle.

Sorry, that is nonsense.
Gravity can work only on real mass & particles.
So, that pure BBT energy can't be converted to 4 fundamental forces while there was no matter in the Universe.
Any BBT scientist must understand that without any sort of matter (including photons) that pure energy can't represent any of the following 4 fundamental forces of nature:
Not gravity,
Not 25% of electromagnetism (please remember that there were no magnets and no dynamos before the Big Bang moment).
Not strong force
Not weak force.
At the maximum that pure energy could set ultra high heat. However we know that without matter there is no heat. So actually that pure BBT energy is just useless energy while there is no matter in the early Universe.
Actually, you confirm that the EM energy that was needed for the photon creation was due to the Casimir effect:

The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.

So, you actually confirm that due to that Casimir effect virtual photons could pop into existence.
We already know that the Casimir effect is all about EM.
So, only the EM energy due to that Casimir effect in the early universe can be transformed into real photon particles.
Therefore, the whole pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't contribute any real energy for the photons/particles creation process.

Conclusions:
You claim that there was EM energy in that early BBT energy.
However, as there were no magnets, no Dynamo & no any sort of matter, then immediately after the bang, this BBT energy represents 0% of EM energy and 100% of pure energy (as stated at wiki).
However I can agree with you that the EM energy component of the early Universe could come from the Casimir effect (and ONLY from that effect).
So, as you specifically use the Casimir effect for the creation process of the photons/particles, then the Pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't set even one photon.

Never the less, the Casimir effect is there with or without the Bang.
Based on the BBT, the space of the early universe was at the size of proton.
So, how much EM energy that proton space could have due to the Casimir effect? Could it contribute 25% of the total BBT energy?
Don't you agree that in our current Universe there is much more EM energy in the empty space due to the Casimir effect than in that early proton size universe?
If the Casimir effect could work for the BBT in order for the creation of the particles 13.8 BY ago while the universe is in the size of a proton, why it can't work today based on Einstein theory in order to keep the universe steady forever and ever?

[Bored chemist]

So, I predict that you are about to say something wrong about it.

I was right.

Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.

I am not under any obligation at all.
You, on the other hand should be explaining why you think that the whole of science is wrong.
Unfortunately, the actual problem lies not with science, but with your poor understanding.

How do you get to this percentage?

I already answered that.
Please pay attention.
I realise you don't understand this

the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.

But that doesn't stop it being true.
And, since there are 4 forces I'm guessing that each one got 1/4 of the energy.
I look forward to you trying to prove that I am wrong.

Sorry, that is nonsense.

It may not make sense to you, but, again, that's a problem with your understanding.

Combinations of forces are already known.
I presume you realise that electrostatic attraction, and magnetic attraction are two different forces.
However, they combine to form the electromagnetic force.

The EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

You presumably did not know about that because, in spite of your claims, you know very little about science.
So the whole of the rest of your post makes no sense.

Did you know about the electroweak interaction?

[Bored chemist]

If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.

They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.

To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style.  Just put your points over punchily..

First, thanks for trying to tidy things up here.
Second, I wonder if I can ask a favour?
You will see that Dave's last post says this.

If the Casimir effect could work for the BBT in order for the creation of the particles 13.8 BY ago while the universe is in the size of a proton, why it can't work today

(among a lot of other things)
I'm quite certain that I already answered that question in this post.

But it seems that my pointing out to Dave that "I already answered that" doesn't convince him of the need to actually read and remember stuff.

I wonder if, perhaps, someone else being able to point out what he has failed to notice might help.

So, would you be kind enough to look through this posting.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg628529#msg628529
and point out to Dave which part of it answers his question.

I recognise that your background isn't in science, but I don't think that will stop you being able to find the relevant paragraph.

Thanks

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
You presumably did not know about that because, in spite of your claims, you know very little about science.
So the whole of the rest of your post makes no sense.Did you know about the electroweak interaction?

Do you have any basic idea what is needed in order to get the weak nuclear force?
In the article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
"Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles,"
So, "the EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force" ONLY when you already have elementary particles.
That is very clear as any particle in the Universe is all about EM energy.
So, once you have particle which is originally based on EM you can discuss about the weak nuclear force.
Hence, in order to have the weak nuclear force you first must have some sort of particle as quark, Photon, Proton... or Aton.
However, the BBT story starts without any sort of elementary particles.
So, how can you claim that the pure BBT energy has 4 forces while you start the BBT story without any particle?
That proves that you are not connected to the reality and the pure BBT energy is just a useless energy as I have stated:

as there were no magnets, no Dynamo & no any sort of matter, then immediately after the bang, this BBT energy represents 0% of EM energy and 100% of pure energy (as stated at wiki).
However I can agree with you that the EM energy component of the early Universe could come from the Casimir effect (and ONLY from that effect).
So, as you specifically use the Casimir effect for the creation process of the photons/particles, then the Pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't set even one photon.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:46:20
Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.

I am not under any obligation at all.

Yes it is your obligation as you are the one that wish to believe that the BBT imagination is real.
You are the one that highlights the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy which is needed for the pair creation.
If the Pure BBT energy was good enough for the pair creation, why did you offer that Casimir effect?
Do you claim now that the Casimir effect is not relevant any more for the pair creation as you do not wish that Einstein will use it in his theory?
So, as long as you can use the Casimir effect for the BBT, that was a perfect solution. However, now that I told you that we can use that effect for Einstein theory - suddenly it is not relevant any more.

Sorry, you do not represent science as there is no science in the BBT
You offer ideas and reject them as soon as you understand that they might work against the BBT.

I'm quite certain that I already answered that question in this post.

You keep on with this kind of nonsense while you clearly don't have a basic knowledge to my questions.
Hence, it is you obligation to offer real answers to my questions.
1. How can you claim that the BBT energy includes 25% of EM energy while there were no magnets, no Dynamo and no elementary particles at the Big Bang moment?
2. What is the added value of the "pure" energy in the total BBT energy if it can't generate even one photon without EM energy?
3. Why did you offer the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy that can generate new particles, while now you suddenly back off from this idea?

[Bored chemist]

In the article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
"Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles,"
So, "the EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force" ONLY when you already have elementary particles.

You really don't understand English, do you?

If Mrs Smith won a prize for the pies she makes with apples, that does not mean that you can't make pies without apples, does it?

Again, we are not talking about your failure to grasp the science here.
You just can't follow simple logic.

You are the one that highlights the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy

I think this is at least the third time I have pointed out that the Casimir effect does not cause the EM felids.
The fields are already there, and the fields cause the Casimir effect.

Please try to pay attention.


Anyway, in general, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Your claim is that all the scientists in the world are wrong and you are right- even though you don't know much science.
So it is you who has to offer the extraordinary evidence.

How can you claim that the BBT energy includes 25% of EM energy while there were no magnets, no Dynamo and no elementary particles at the Big Bang moment?

I already answered that several times

Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 06:34:28
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.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2021 19:01:59
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.

Why do you not remember things?
Is it only something that affects you when you post nonsense on the web, or do you forget everything in the rest of your life?

Do you remember your own birthday?

Why did you offer the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy

I never did.
You are making stuff up, and it makes you look silly.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I think this is at least the third time I have pointed out that the Casimir effect does not cause the EM felids.
The fields are already there, and the fields cause the Casimir effect.
Please try to pay attention.

That was very clear to me.
You actually confirm that the EM fields are already there in the space.
So, in any given empty cube in space there is some EM field.
As the cube is bigger, the total EM field there is higher and as the cube is smaller the total EM field is lower.
We know the Energy in a Photon. Let's call it Ep.
However, we know that the energy in a photon is all about EM.
So theoretically, if we could estimate the total energy in a given size of a cube, we could also extract the requested size of a cube that is needed to carry enough EM field/energy which is equivalent to the energy of a single photon.
Let's call this cube as Qp (A size of a cube in the empty space that its total EM = Ep).
Now, let' read again your following message:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 08:37:49
"The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So there were EM fields in the early universe."
Is it real or unrealistic?
If it is real then you clearly confirm that the EM field in the early universe was due to the EM in space.
However, in order for just a single virtual photon to pop into existence, the minimal size of the space must be bigger than Qp.
If that Qp is bigger than a proton size, then while the early universe was at the size of proton its total EM energy might be smaller than the energy in a single photon.

Hence, there is no way to get enough EM energy (even for a sinle photon) - not from the infinite small space (of the early universe proton size) and not from the BBT energy (as there were no magnets and no dynamo before the bang).

Therefore, do you confirm that your following message is unrealistic?

"The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So  there were EM fields in the early universe."

Sorry, There was NO enough EM field in the early Universe (not even for a single photon).
Please try to pay attention

[Bored chemist]

I see you still didn't understand that photons can have energies as small as you like.

If you knew some physics, you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with that post.

Why don't you learn?

Incidentally, the Casimir force decreases with the 4th power of the separation between the plates.
It was measurable (piconewtons) with separations about 1 micron (10^-6 m).
So , on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be  something like 10^36 times bigger.
 All other things being equal, the pressure would be 10^36 times bigger, acting on an area 10^ 18 times smaller.
Overall that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton.

That might be plenty.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Incidentally, the Casimir force decreases with the 4th power of the separation between the plates.
It was measurable (piconewtons) with separations about 1 micron (10^-6 m).
So , on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be  something like 10^36 times bigger.
 All other things being equal, the pressure would be 10^36 times bigger, acting on an area 10^ 18 times smaller.
Overall that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton.

Is it real?
Let's see:
Proton mass = 938.27208816(29) MeV/c2.
Electron Mass = 0.51099895000(15) MeV/c2[6]
So, the mass in a single proton is equal to about 938/0.51 = 1840 electron.
We already know that by annihilate of electron and positron we get photon.
So, the "mass" of Photon is equal to Electron + Positron = 1.02 MeV/c2
Therefore, the mass in a single proton is equal to 938/1.02 = 920 (Electron + Positron) = 920 photons

You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.

on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be  something like 10^36 times bigger.

so the total "mass" is:
10^36 x 1.02 MeV/c2 = about 10^36 MeV/c2
Now let's find how many Proton is needed for that mass:
10^36MeV/c2 / 938 MeV/c2 = about 10^33 protons.

So, based on your answer, in an empty space of a proton size, there could be a total 10^36 photons which represent a mass of 10^33 protons.

Is it real?
If so, please backup that understanding by real article.
If it is just an imagination, then why do you continue with those lies?
What do you gain with that? What is your real mission?

[Bored chemist]

You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.

I never claimed that.
You just made it up.
Why tell obvious lies like that?
Do you want to look foolish?

If so, please backup that understanding by real article.

Sure, the bit that starts .
"The Casimir force for two perfectly conducting parallel plates of area ‘A’ separated
by a distance ‘d’ is:."
on page 3 here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9805038.pdf

[Bored chemist]

What do you gain with that?

What I gain is posting the truth here.
What do you gain by pretending that you know what you are talking about?