[Kryptid]

For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse."

Your model starts off with an empty Universe. There were no high-energy electron beams or intense laser pulses back then.

[Bored chemist]

This phenomenon is predicted by CEN.

Who is Cen?

In the context of

Do you agree that our Scientists think that:
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:

Do you understand what

incredibly short-lived

means?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your model starts off with an empty Universe

Our scientists claim that there is energy in the empty/vacuum space that is called VE.

There were no high-energy electron beams or intense laser pulses back then.

It is just an example for the VE:
For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse.

[Bored chemist]

It is just an example for the VE:

No. it is an example of something totally different from the VE.

[Kryptid]

For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse.

So then how would you do it when you don't have either an electron beam or a laser? Remember, this is the beginning of the Universe where there was nothing around yet.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is just an example for the VE:

No. it is an example of something totally different from the VE.

Did you had the chance to read the following:

Do you agree that our Scientists think that:
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
Virtual particles in vacuum. According to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), virtual particle pairs are continuously being created and annihilated in the vacuum. These virtual particles can be revealed in several experiments, for example, when placing two uncharged metallic plates in the vacuum (the Casimir effect).

Do you agree with our scientists that the energy in the empty pace that is called vacuum energy - VE has real energy  (as we detect by Casimir effect) that can convert virtual pair into real mass pair?
Yes or no please.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So then how would you do it when you don't have either an electron beam or a laser? Remember, this is the beginning of the Universe where there was nothing around yet.

There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.
It had been proved by Casimir effect that the energy is there in the empty vacuum space.

[Bored chemist]

Did you had the chance to read the following:

Yes.
It talks about
" incredibly short-lived virtual electrons,"

Did you read this

Do you understand what
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:12:55
incredibly short-lived
means?

There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.

Nobody said there was, did they?

Do you agree with our scientists that the energy in the empty pace that is called vacuum energy - VE has real energy  (as we detect by Casimir effect) that can convert virtual pair into real mass pair?
Yes or no please.

No, of course not.
That's why they talk about

incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks

Do you not understand what "virtual"  means either?
Virtual particles are not real.

[Bored chemist]

Are you trying to say that the VE somehow turns itself into real particles?

[Kryptid]

There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.
It had been proved by Casimir effect that the energy is there in the empty vacuum space.

That's not the issue. The issue is that you have yet to describe a plausible mechanism based on real observations by which those virtual particles became real particles in an otherwise empty universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:02:49
Did you had the chance to read the following:
Yes.
It talks about
" incredibly short-lived virtual electrons,"

Why don't you read the whole message?
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
So they specifically discuss about: "A virtual particle with mass":
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later."
Therefore, that virtual particle with mass pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE and then a tinny second later it pop out of existence due to annihilation process.
Is it clear to you?

That's not the issue. The issue is that you have yet to describe a plausible mechanism based on real observations by which those virtual particles became real particles in an otherwise empty universe.

Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.

[Kryptid]

Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.

Okay then, so what mechanism keeps them from popping out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later, as your link specifies?

"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.

Okay then, so what mechanism keeps them from popping out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later, as your link specifies?

"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.

Excellent question.
It is all about the asymmetry/parity solution:

Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion. And the endresult is that every 10 billion matter/anti-matter pairs annihilated each other leaving behind 1 matter particle and 10 billion photons.
Source:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html

It is also stated:
"In the 1960's, it was found that some types of particles did not conserve left or right-handedness during their decay into other particles. This property, called parity, was found to be broken in a small number of interactions at the same time the charge symmetry was also broken and became known as CP violation."
"One time out of a thousand, an anti- noun will decay to the right, a violation of charge-parity of CP rule"
Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.
If it is one to one thousand or one to 10 Billion it is still ok.
I also don't care about the type of particle as there is no need to set any real Atom. As long as it has mass and it survive the annihilation process - it is OK.

[Bored chemist]

Is it clear to you?

Why don't you read the whole message?

I did.

"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.

You can't build a universe from virtual particles.
If you read the whole sentence you see that those particles pop out of existence.
They are "incredibly short-lived virtual electrons" etc.
They don't last long.


Why didn't you understand this, either when you read the article, or, at least, when I pointed it out?

That's not science you are failing to understand there, it's just basic thinking.

[Bored chemist]

I also don't care about the type of particle as there is no need to set any real Atom. As long as it has mass and it survive the annihilation process - it is OK.

Well, where do the atoms come from?
You can't make a universe full of atoms by annihilating a single black hole.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.

No
That would violate the conservation of mass.

(and the uncertainty principle).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.

No
That would violate the conservation of mass.

(and the uncertainty principle).

The Asymmetry/parity idea is based on the BBT theory.
That article is all about how the virtual particles had been transformed into real mass particles by using the BBT energy.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html
"Spacetime arrives when supergravity separates into the combined nuclear forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) and gravitation. Matter makes its first appearance during this era as a composite form called Grand Unified Theory or GUT matter. GUT matter is a combination of what will become leptons, quarks and photons. In other words, it contains all the superpositions of future normal matter. But, during the GUT era, it is too hot and violent for matter to survive in the form of leptons and quarks."
Therefore, if that theory works for the BBT then it should also work for theory D.
If it violates the conservation of mass (as you claim) then it won't work for both theories.

"In the 1960's, it was found that some types of particles did not conserve left or right-handedness during their decay into other particles. This property, called parity, was found to be broken in a small number of interactions at the same time the charge symmetry was also broken and became known as CP violation."

In 1960 our scientists verified that this theory is real
Therefore, it must be real.

[Bored chemist]

In 1960 our scientists verified that this theory is real
Therefore, it must be real.

Yes, it is real, but it does not do what you say it does.
If it did, that would break the conservation of mass.

The Asymmetry/parity idea is based on the BBT theory.

No, it is not.
It is based on the observation that there is mass in the universe.

If it violates the conservation of mass (as you claim) then it won't work for both theories.

How many times do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does not apply to the BB?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How many times do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does not apply to the BB?

How many time do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does apply for any brane.
Our infinite space universe is by definition a 3D brane.
Therefore, even if you are personally the master of the branes and you can generate or eliminate 3D branes in a brief of a second and transform the energy between the branes - at any brane the energy must obey to the conservation of mass.
Therefore, you can't just assume that the BBT energy had been created at some other 3D brane without breaking the conservation of mass especially as there is no evidence that there is any other brane.
There is no free lunch in our 3D brane or at any other imagination brane.
Hence, if something break the conservation of mass - it is only the BBT itself.

Your assumption that the BBT energy had been created at other brane without breaking the conservation of mass is wrong!
If you wish to get energy to your imagination theory - you must explain how that energy had been created and where.
The BBT is all about energy transformation. That isn't good enough.

Even so, once you get your BBT energy at that early universe - the conservation of mass must work.
Therefore, you can claim that the BBT energy generates new virtual mass particles.
However, those particles would have to be a short living particles:

A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.

Hence, once you get the BBT energy in your early infinite small universe, you can't bypass the conservation law any more.
Therefore, if any virtual particle with mass at that early universe time can pop into existence and stay at existence due to asymmetry or parity idea then this idea can also work for theory D.
Sorry – even if you are the real master of the Universe I still request one law for any theory.

[Bored chemist]

How many time do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does apply for any brane.

You can say that as often as you like.
But it isn't true, or, at least, it isn't relevant.
The mass conservation law  is a consequence of a symmetry, and that symmetry does not exist at the moment of the BB.

The private lives of branes are irrelevant.

Therefore, you can't just assume that the BBT energy had been created at some other 3D brane without breaking the conservation of mass

I never did.

However, those particles would have to be a short living particles:

No
Because they are real particles, not virtual ones.

Therefore, you can claim that the BBT energy generates new virtual mass particles.

The claim- based on actual science- is that the BB created real particles.

Certainly , something created real particles because you and I are made from them.
Your claim is that they are created by magic when virtual particles become real for no reason.
That's clearly impossible because it breaks the conservation laws.

The BBT says they were created from the energy of the BB
That does not break the conservation laws- it's the conversion of energy to mass which is a process that actually happens and can be observed.

That's the big difference between the two ideas.
One is idea possible, and the other is yours.

Hence, once you get the BBT energy in your early infinite small universe, you can't bypass the conservation law any more.

Nobody said you could.

Sorry – even if you are the real master of the Universe I still request one law for any theory.

OK, lets have one law.
The conservation of mass/ energy in accordance with the laws of physics which we see today and which follow (via No ether's theorem) from the observed symmetry of the universe.

The mass/ energy conservation law makes your fairy tale process for a BH creating the universe impossible.

Do you accept that?

I already proved it, BTW.