[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/03/2021 12:17:36
You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.

I never claimed that.

You have stated:

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.

So, what was your intention when you have stated that:
"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. "
You have also stated that: " that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton."
So, how that "10^36 times bigger" and that 10^6 Newton could explain the creation of entire particles/matter in less than a second while the early universe was in the size of a proton?

What I gain is posting the truth here.

Sorry, there is no truth in your messages.
You do whatever it takes to confuse me and wrong /not relevant data and then change the meaning of your answers.
So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.

Please also answer the following question:

Why all the particales/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?

[Bored chemist]

You do whatever it takes to confuse me

I just post mainstream science.
If reality confuses you that's your problem.

wrong /not relevant data

The datya I posted is not wrong. The fact that you do not understand why it is relevant is also not my fault.

hange the meaning of your answers.

I have not changed the meaning of any answer I have given.
I have had to explain the meaning to you sometimes..
The fact that you are the only one who did not understand it is not my fault.

You have stated:

I know what I said.
And I never said what you claimed, did I?

You pretended that I had said

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.

You made that up and then lied about me saying it.
Then, when I pointed out that you are a liar you lied again by implying that I had said  it in the bit you quoted.

So, how that "10^36 times bigger" and that 10^6 Newton could explain the creation of entire particles/matter in less than a second while the early universe was in the size of a proton?

What I was doing there, in a way that is obvious to anyone who can read, is pointing out that your claim

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)

is also wrong.

Please also answer the following question:

Why all the particales/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?

Because it goes dark at night.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:53:44
Please also answer the following question:
Why all the particles/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?

Because it goes dark at night.

OK
Let's see if I understand you correctly:
You claim that as the universe is dark at night there is no way for any sort of new particles pair creation in our universe.
So, you totally reject the message from Einstein that new particles are constantly created in our current Universe although you are fully aware that all the 4 forces are available in our universe.
So, with all the availability of EM energies and all the other forces in our universe - not even a single pair could be created.
However, at the big bang, while there were no gravity, No Dynamo, no metal, no real EM and actually no matter at all - somehow all the particles in the universe had been created in less than a second and for you this is real science.
How can you call that assumption as Science?
Sorry - if today new particles couldn't be created in our universe while it is full with all the 4 forces, then how do you know how the particles had been created at the first second of the Universe?
Have you been there?
You also have totally ignored my following message:

So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.

So, please tell us how the Big Bang could overcome the annihilation process of the new pair while there was no EM at that first second?
Actually, our scientists are fully aware that the annihilation process is a key obligation for the new pair creation.
Therefore, they have estimated that about one of a million or a trillion might overcome that problem.
I claim that this is imagination.
Not even a single pair out of trillions over trillions over… could overcome the annihilation process without EM
You base the creation process on pure imagination that can't work.

I just post mainstream science.

Sorry, there is no science in this mainstream.
It isn't even a science fiction.
It is just imagination and unproved ideas.
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.
Therefore, this mainstream and the BBT are useless.

[Bored chemist]

You claim that as the universe is dark at night there is no way for any sort of new particles pair creation in our universe.

No, I didn't make that claim
You just lied again.

[Bored chemist]

So, you totally reject the message from Einstein that new particles are constantly created in our current Universe

Yes, I do.
And I am in good company.
Einstein also rejected it.

So, why do you stick to it?

[Bored chemist]

How can you call that assumption as Science?

The fact that all the universe is here is not an assumption, it is an observation.

[charles1948]

How can you call that assumption as Science?

The fact that all the universe is here is not an assumption, it is an observation.

But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint.  Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,

We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings.  And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere.  So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.

We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects.  But how could we observe them?

[Bored chemist]

But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint.  Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,

We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings.  And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere.  So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.

We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects.  But how could we observe them?

Do you understand that Dave is effectively saying I am assuming that the universe is here.
Not anything about it, just that it exists.
And I say that's not an assumption, but an observation.

[charles1948]

But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint.  Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,

We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings.  And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere.  So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.

We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects.  But how could we observe them?

Do you understand that Dave is effectively saying I am assuming that the universe is here.
Not anything about it, just that it exists.
And I say that's not an assumption, but an observation.

But by your argument, if you personally stop observing the Universe, by temporarily going to sleep, does that mean the Universe isn't there anymore while you're "out"  asleep?

[Bored chemist]

But by your argument, if you personally stop observing the Universe, by temporarily going to sleep, does that mean the Universe isn't there anymore while you're "out"  asleep?

No.

Because there are records of it having existed while I slept.

You seem to be missing the point here.

[charles1948]

Well, one of us is missing the point.  Actually, I'm not sure what the point is any more.  Can we just start again, and resume normal discussions.  If that's possible.

[Bored chemist]

Can we just start again, and resume normal discussions.

We can't resume "normal discussions" because "normal" means paying attention to what the other person says.
And we have Dave saying this

So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.

But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."


and 10/12/19
"Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event  with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.

That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.

You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it."

And 5/12
"Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"


So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.

He won't accept reality.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And we have Dave saying this

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/03/2021 17:30:54
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.

But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."

No, this is incorrect.
Noether's theorem is all about energy.
However, we currently discuss on the creation of particles from pure energy.
So, even if I accept the idea of the new created energy due to Noether's theorem, it is still your obligation to prove/show how that pure energy had been transformed into real particles pair (as Electron/positron).
That transformation/creation process must represent a real physical process/law.
Therefore - our scientists must show how the physical creation process of electron/positron from that pure BBT energy really works.
As it is a physical process, then if it worked at the early universe - it must work also today.
So, you can't claim that the creation of new particles could only work at the early Universe due to real physical law, but it can't work anymore today.
Therefore I have stated:

So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.

Theoretically, you could start the BBT story with all the particles in the Universe or with all the galaxies at a proton size.
But as you start the BBT story with "pure energy" at a proton size, then it is you obligation to show the real repeatable physical process that is needed to transform that energy into particles pair as electron/positron.

Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:
Even if due to the BBT scientists' imagination, new particles pair had been created from that pure energy, how can you prevent the annihilation process without Real Magnetic/electromagnetic field?

You also have totally ignored my following message:
So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.
So, please tell us how the Big Bang could overcome the annihilation process of the new pair while there was no EM at that first second?
Actually, our scientists are fully aware that the annihilation process is a key obligation for the new pair creation.
Therefore, they have estimated that about one of a million or a trillion might overcome that problem.
I claim that this is imagination.
Not even a single pair out of trillions over trillions over… could overcome the annihilation process without EM
You base the creation process on pure imagination that can't work.

So, please answer how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process without real magnets or electromagnets field

So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.
He won't accept reality.

Sorry, you are the one that doesn't accept reality.
If you do, then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists must show how new electron/positron are created TODAY from pure energy (and ONLY from pure energy) while they bypass the annihilation process.

[Bored chemist]

Noether's theorem is all about energy.

No, it isn't.

So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.

He won't accept reality.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:

I answered that earlier.
But you do not pay attention.
It's like trying to hold a discussion with a two-year-old.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:

I answered that earlier.
But you do not pay attention.
It's like trying to hold a discussion with a two-year-old.

This is a lie
You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.
Actually, our scientists are fully aware about this key obstacle and therefore, they have stated that almost all the new created particles pair in the early universe had been annihilated.
However, they assume/hope that somehow one pair out of trillion might survive that annihilation process.
This is imagination. Without real magnetic field there is no way to get the requested Lorentz force that is vital to bypass the annihilation process.
Hence, even one pair out of trillions over trillion over…. Trillions wouldn't survive.
All of them would be the annihilated (at the same moment of creation) without even one exception.
This is the meaning of real science!

Conclusions:
So far you couldn't offer real science' explanation for the following:
1.  .How the BBT could bypass the annihilation process without real magnetic fields?
2. Even if somehow one particle pair out of trillions had been survived the annihilation process (without magnetic field), why the same particles pair process can't work today in our current Universe.

You surly know that the Noether's theorem doesn't offer any answer for the above two questions.
Hence, as long as you (or any other BBT scientist) can't offer real answers for those questions - it's the time to close the discussion by the following final statement:

The BBT is a useless theory!!!

[Bored chemist]

You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.

I never said that I had.

I said that I had answered your question.
And the answer is that we don't know (yet).

Just because you don't like the answer is no reason for you to say I didn't answer the question.

Without real magnetic field there is no way to get the requested Lorentz force that is vital to bypass the annihilation process.

What are you talking about?

[Bored chemist]

This is a lie

Then stop saying it.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

The BBT is a useless theory!!!

That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.

[Bored chemist]

The BBT is a useless theory!!!

That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.

So, we can add that to the list of things you don't understand properly.