[Bored chemist]

You don't care if the Universe is finite or infinite

The BBT works in either case, so it is not relevant.
Why should I care about it?

You don't care about the real age of the Universe.

It's about 14 Bn years.
Why should I care about it?

You don't care about any contradiction in the BBT.

You have not shown any contradiction in the BBT.
You have contradicted yourself- for example by talking about the early universe when you think it is infinitely old.

On the other hand, you don't care about observations (red-shift and the CMBR).
And you don't care about the laws of physics- the conservation of mass/energy.

Why do you ignore those, but pretend you are doing science?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Okay, that's fair. I wouldn't expect to be able to see anything infinitely far away. If we were to see a black hole suddenly form from empty space, then that would imply that your scenario is feasible even though we could never see it directly.

Thanks
Do appreciate

That is, however, a big problem in itself, as we have never seen a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't have have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.

Let me use the example of the first living ameba creation in our planet.
We all know that the matter in the ameba was there in our planet long before it pop up.
However, with all the technology -
"we have never seen ameba a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't have have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.
So does it mean that it can't happen?

So not only are you proposing something that we can't observe because it's infinitely far away, but also something that we haven't observed locally nor even have a basis to believe it could happen in the first place. You have no observations or math to support your idea for a black hole forming from vacuum energy, so that means it breaks your rules.

The energy in the vacuum is real.
However, as we can't observe the creation of the first ameba we also can't observe the creation of the first tinny BH.

[Kryptid]

Let me use the example of the first living ameba creation in our planet.
We all know that the matter in the ameba was there in our planet long before it pop up.
However, with all the technology -
"we have never seen ameba a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't have have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.
So does it mean that it can't happen?

Your rules seem to think so. Here are some examples where you reject the existence of negative mass/energy because we have never observed it:

Sorry to tell you again and again that there is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please don't even dare to say it again without a solid prove/observation for negative mass.

So far our scientists could not offer any observation that could support this idea.
Therefore - without clear observation that there is negative particle, then this idea is just imagination.

If you reject negative mass because we have never seen it, then you have to reject a black hole forming from vacuum energy because we have never seen that either. It's like you said before, one science rule for everyone. You can't apply the rule sometimes and then not apply it other times.

[Bored chemist]

The energy in the vacuum is real.

But too small.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:33
You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!

I did put forrward an explanation, at least twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Sorry, the hyperspace is just a fiction.
If it was real, then you couldn't bypass the conservation law.
In any case, somehow you have to explain how it had been created at another hyperspace/dimension and how can you move from one dimension to other.
So, if the BBT energy is based on that imagination it is clearly just imagination.

The energy in the vacuum is real.

But too small.

No
It is very high

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your rules seem to think so. Here are some examples where you reject the existence of negative mass/energy because we have never observed it:

Dear Kryptid
How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?
Based on the BBT the negative energy/mass is real and located in our current Universe.
It might be located in every BH.
So, if it is real and located TODAY in  our real universe - we have to see it.
On the other hand the first tinny BH took place infinite time ago.
So how can we see it today?

[Kryptid]

It might be located in every BH.

You say this and yet you require us to be able to observe it in order for you to avoid calling it imagination? You do realize that the closest black holes are light-years away and any negative-mass particles produced by them would form close to the event horizon and be far too weak to observe with current technology, right? So you are asking us to observe something unrealistic. That is in direct contradiction to what you said here:

I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.

So which one is it? Do you require an observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?

So how can we see it today?

I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere. We don't have any such observation. Without an observation, your previous quotes call it "imagination".

[Bored chemist]

How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?

We have not seen either of them.

On the other hand, they are certainly different.
The negative mass makes sense; the first BH "creating the universe" does not.

we have to see it.

It is small, far away and near the EH of a BH.
Why do you imagine we will see it?

[Bored chemist]

So how can we see it today?

I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere. We don't have any such observation.

There's a good reason for that.
Dave thinks that this event happens with a non-zero probability.
I don't know what number he has in mind but it must be something of the nature of " 1 BH per billion billion years per cubic light year" or something.

He also thinks that the universe is infinitely old.
In which case, there should be a BH in my garden and another in my bedroom...
And so on.
Once you multiply any non-zero probability by an infinite time you get an infinite number of BH.

There is no room in Dave's universe for anything except  Black Holes.
Either he's wrong about the age, or he's wrong about the mechanism.

So we know he is wrong.
It's just that he won't accept it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:19
How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?

We have not seen either of them.

Dear BC
I would like to remind you that the chance for a negative mass to fall into a BH is equal to the chance for it to be ejected out.
Therefore, from statistical point of view, there is 50% chance for negative mass to be ejected outwards.
Hence, if Hawking radiation was real then around any second BH there should be a negative mass.

It is small, far away and near the EH of a BH.
Why do you imagine we will see it?

A positive mass has a positive gravity
A negative mass has a negative gravity.
Therefore, if the negative mass was real we have to see the impact of its negative gravity.

The negative mass makes sense; the first BH "creating the universe" does not.

No!
The negative mass is just a fiction.
As we don't observe the impact of the negative gravity around even one BH in the entire Universe then there is no negative mass in our Universe at all.
However, the first BH is real.

Dave thinks that this event happens with a non-zero probability.

That shows that there is a possibility for a BH to be created by the energy in the vacuum open space.

I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere.

Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.

I don't know what number he has in mind but it must be something of the nature of " 1 BH per billion billion years per cubic light year" or something.

He also thinks that the universe is infinitely old.
In which case, there should be a BH in my garden and another in my bedroom...
And so on.
Once you multiply any non-zero probability by an infinite time you get an infinite number of BH.

There is no room in Dave's universe for anything except  Black Holes.

I don't think that you would find a BH in your Bed Room as only one single BH is needed.
However, even if your assumption about the chance for the BH creation is correct, then please be aware that in a real infinite Universe there are infinite observables universe sizes.
So, the chance to get even one BH in each observable Universe is very low.
Therefore, please don't run to the near shelter. You are protected.

We don't have any such observation. Without an observation, your previous quotes call it "imagination".

Do you require an observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?

There is no need to observe any BH creation in our current Universe, as only one BH that had been created at the infinity long time ago is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
Therefore, the chance to observe that kind of BH creation from Vacuum in our observable universe is absolutely low.

[Bored chemist]

So, which is it?
Is the probability of  BH forming zero, in which case you are wrong because the universe isn't empty , or more than zero in which case you are wrong because the universe isn't full?

[Bored chemist]

As we don't observe the impact of the negative gravity around even one BH in the entire Universe then there is no negative mass in our Universe at all.

Then you have no way of making the creation of mass by a BH work.
The laws of physics forbid it.

[Bored chemist]

Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.

But theory D is wrong.
It breaks the conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

So, the chance to get even one BH in each observable Universe is very low.

You didn't understand the bit about infinite time, did you?
Even a very improbable event happens uncountably often in an infinite time.

[Kryptid]

Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.

You have no solid evidence how such a black hole could come into existence. That makes it, according to your rules, imagination.

There is no need to observe any BH creation in our current Universe, as only one BH that had been created at the infinity long time ago is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
Therefore, the chance to observe that kind of BH creation from Vacuum in our observable universe is absolutely low.

This is a dodge. Please actually answer the question this time: do you require the observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.

But theory D is wrong.
It breaks the conservation laws.

Theory D is the only theory that doesn't break the Conservation law due to the following:
1. We all agree that there is more than enough energy in the vacuum empty space. Therefore the creation of the first BH from that energy doesn't break the conservation low. If more BH would pop up, then it is still doesn't break that law.
2. There is no need for any sort of negative mass, dark matter or dark energy in that theory. therefore there is no need to get free of charge dark matter and dark energy as it requested in the BBT.

3. Particle pair creation in the SMBH' accretion disc - I have already explained clearly why the creation of new particle pair at that disc doesn't violate the conservation law. As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination. Please try to find some other idea that could help you to prove that this pair creation violets the conservation law.

However, the BBT clearly violets the conservation law as it doesn't offer any valid source for the BBT energy.
Even based on the imagination idea of other dimension - then somehow that energy should be created over there. But the law must work at any dimension. so even if by twisting the law you can transform energy from dimension to other dimension, you still need to show how that energy had been created at the first dimension. It is very clear that as based on your understanding, energy can't be created - then the BBT energy can't be created at any imagination dimension!
Therefore, the BBT breaks the conservation law by 100%.while theory D works perfectly according that law!

[Bored chemist]

You have no solid evidence how such a black hole could come into existence. That makes it, according to your rules, imagination.

The "idea" by which the BH produces a universe is also an example of what he calls "imagination".

Except that, in that case, it isn't just that we have never seen it happen; the problem is that we know it cannot happen.

And it relies on the idea that BH "pop up" from time to time, but if that was true, the universe would be full of them (after an infinite time).
So we know that is also wrong.

[Bored chemist]

We all agree that there is more than enough energy in the vacuum empty space.

No, we don't.

There is no need for any sort of negative mass, dark matter or dark energy in that theory.

Well... it is real, whether you need it or not

"Physicist Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University reported the observation of negative mass behavior in rubidium atoms. On 10 April 2017, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

However, the BBT clearly violets the conservation law

It can not possibly violate the law of conservation of mass.

The conditions required for the law (symmetry in time) did not exist at the moment of the BB.
So why lie about it?
How could it break a law that did not exist?

On the other hand your idea clearly does break the mass conservation law.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, the BBT breaks the conservation law by 100%.while theory D works perfectly according that law!

You have that the wrong way round,

[Dave Lev (OP)]

do you require the observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?

Any request for observation must be realistic
You have confirmed that you are working according my rules.
So, I as didn't ask you to offer any observation for that Big bang moment that took place 13.8 BY ago, then please don't ask me to offer an observation for a bang that took place infinite time ago.