[Kryptid]

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

You're talking about two completely different things. Virtual particle pairs appearing and then disappearing in the vacuum doesn't have anything to do with asymmetry in the decay paths of real particles. If you think it does, then you are going to need to describe the specifics of the process. Explain to us, for example, how to get an electron out of the vacuum without it disappearing back into the vacuum again.

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.

Decay asymmetry isn't going to help virtual particles become real, because they are two fundamentally different things.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The mass conservation law  is a consequence of a symmetry, and that symmetry does not exist at the moment of the BB.

No
That is incorrect.
In the following article it is clearly stated:
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe"
Therefore, at the big bang moment itself you can twist the law of physics, get your imagination energy from imagination source but once the energy is there in that new born space then the conservation law must work.
Hence, at the time that the energy is transformed to particle pairs - they all must obey to the physics law.
It is stated:
"Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "
So, it is expected that any particle pair that is created by the BBT energy would be symmetrical.
However it is also stated:
One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy."
So, they don't have a clear answer for that Asymmetry phenomenon at the Big Bang event.
As It is stated:  "if matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy" then it is also clear that they don't have an answer why there is asymmetry as they do understand that after the bang the universe must work symmetry.
However, they came with the following solution:
"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they  call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:43:41
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.

I do recall that you did.
Never the less, do you claim now that the BBT energy had not been created at some imaginary brane?
If so, would you kindly explain where that BBT Energy had been created and how?

[Bored chemist]

The particles generated  shortly after the BB were real, though half of them were antimatter.

The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.

The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles. It explains why there is matter in the universe.

But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.

You really should try learning science.

[Bored chemist]

I do recall that you did.

How often are you affected by these hallucinations?

[Bored chemist]

If so, would you kindly explain where that BBT Energy had been created and how?

The same place that you think the vacuum energy came from.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The particles generated  shortly after the BB were real, though half of them were antimatter.
The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.

The virtual particles in the empty space are transformed by the VE to real particles as it is stated:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
"virtual photons reflecting off it can receive enough energy from the bounce to turn into real photons."
Real photons mean real particles.
Therefore, those virtual photons in the vacuum can transformed to real photon by VE energy.

But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.

Yes it is
If the particles that had been created by the BBT are real, then also those created by VE are real as they are converted to real photons.

You really should try learning science.

You really should try learning real science and also try to clear your mind from that BBT imagination

[Bored chemist]

Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.

[Bored chemist]

under the right conditions

Those conditions do not exist in a vacuum, do they?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.

That article is all about Vacuum:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
Even the title it is stated:
"A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light"
It is also stated:
"A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness, such as light."
"These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. For instance, photons—packets of light—can pop in and out of a vacuum. "
So, they specifically claim that in the empty vacuum, virtual particles can pop up into real photon.
It is very clear to me that you have no intention to accept that explanation from our science as real science. For you there is only one ultimate science. - That is called the BBT imagination.
Any message from our scientists that contradicts your BBT or even positions other idea at a feasible level is irrelevant for you.
Therefore, it is very clear that I'm wasting my time while you don't wish to accept the clear messages from our scientists.
From now on I have no intention to waste my time and try to convince you that our scientists are correct and you are wrong.
Just stay there at your BBT palace.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You're talking about two completely different things. Virtual particle pairs appearing and then disappearing in the vacuum doesn't have anything to do with asymmetry in the decay paths of real particles.

That is correct

Explain to us, for example, how to get an electron out of the vacuum without it disappearing back into the vacuum again.

Our scientists claim that it is all about "Some unknown entity intervening in this process":

"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they  call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.

[Bored chemist]

So, they specifically claim that in the empty vacuum, virtual particles can pop up into real photon.

Where do they make that claim?

Have you mistaken the fact that the virtual photons can exert a pressure for evidence that they are no longer virtual and have become real?
Is that your current mistake?

Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.

[Kryptid]

"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions

The experiment used superconducting quantum-interference devices. Those don't exist in an empty universe.

Our scientists claim that it is all about "Some unknown entity intervening in this process":

So in other words, you don't know what caused it. According to your own earlier quotes, "we don't know" isn't science, so we have to throw Theory D in the garbage.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:59:26
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions

The experiment used superconducting quantum-interference devices. Those don't exist in an empty universe.

Dear Kryptid
I have high appreciation to your approach.
While BC ignores any real message that could negatively impact the BBT, you focus on real science.
Therefore, do you accept the meaning of "Vacuum fluctuations"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs".
"The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by ħ ≈ 5,27286×10−35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy {\displaystyle \Delta E}\Delta E and lifetime shorter than {\displaystyle \Delta t}\Delta t are continually created and annihilated in empty space."
If that is not good enough it is stated that:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."

So in other words, you don't know what caused it. According to your own earlier quotes, "we don't know" isn't science, so we have to throw Theory D in the garbage.

Our scientists clearly know how that process works.
"These predictions are very well understood and tested"
It is also stated:
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. "
Therefore, do you finelly agree that: "Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles),?

Therefore, there is a solid prove that Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles.
So, theory D is based on real energy that is proved and confirmed, while the BBT is based on imagination energy.
Still this moment no one could offer the energy source for that imagination theory.
Do you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?

[Kryptid]

Do you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?

I'm not contesting the existence of virtual particles here. What I'm saying is that you don't have a mechanism based on actual measurements and observation that can prevent them from disappearing back into the vacuum where they came from.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?

I'm not contesting the existence of virtual particles here. What I'm saying is that you don't have a mechanism based on actual measurements and observation that can prevent them from disappearing back into the vacuum where they came from.

Wow
So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.
I also hope that we all agree that no one really knows the energy source for the BBT.
Therefore, while theory D starts based on real energy the BBT is based on imagination energy.
That by itself is a big advantage for theory D.
Now it is my mission to move to the next step.

[Kryptid]

Now it is my mission to move to the next step.

Which should be to explain how your model keeps virtual particles from disappearing back into the vacuum.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Which should be to explain how your model keeps virtual particles from disappearing back into the vacuum.

Dear Kryptid

Just to remind you:
Virtual particale is "a pair of heavier particles". They are real and have real mass.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. "

Therefore, virtual particle which pop up as a pair of heavier particles would pop out as real photon due to annihilation process.
Hence, there is no difference between real particles that pop up due to VE to those particles that pop up due to BBT energy.
In both cases we get real particles pair that are transformed to photon due to annihilation process.
However our scientists claim that one/ten of a billion should be asymmetry:

https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe"
Therefore, at the big bang moment itself you can twist the law of physics, get your imagination energy from imagination source but once the energy is there in that new born space then the conservation law must work.
Hence, at the time that the energy is transformed to particle pairs - they all must obey to the physics law.
It is stated:
"Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "
So, it is expected that any particle pair that is created by the BBT energy would be symmetrical.
However it is also stated:
One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy."
So, they don't have a clear answer for that Asymmetry phenomenon at the Big Bang event.
As It is stated:  "if matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy" then it is also clear that they don't have an answer why there is asymmetry as they do understand that after the bang the universe must work symmetry.
However, they came with the following solution:
"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they  call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.

Therefore, if you accept the idea that one/ten of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT, then you also must agree that the same process should also work for theory D.

With regards to the following reply from BC:

The particles generated  shortly after the BB were real, though half of them were antimatter.
The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.

The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles. It explains why there is matter in the universe.

But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.

He claims that "The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles."
I have proved that the meaning of the virtual particle generated by the VE is real particle.
Therefore, as the parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) refers to real particles (in the BBT), it also must refers to virtual particles (real particles) that had been created by VE.

Once we agree with that we can move on to the next step of theory D.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, if you accept the idea that one of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT

According to your rules, I can't. We don't have any observation of virtual particles surviving annihilation from the vacuum. I also don't care about the Big Bang theory here. It's in the trash.

Therefore, as the parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which refers to real particles, also refers to the virtual particles that had been created by VE.

Parity violation doesn't have anything to do with particles surviving annihilations.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:18:15
Therefore, if you accept the idea that one of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT

According to your rules, I can't. We don't have any observation of virtual particles surviving annihilation from the vacuum. I also don't care about the Big Bang theory here. It's in the trash

No, this isn't my rule.
Based on my rule, if it is feasible to observe, then we should observe.
However, it isn't accepted to observe a single photon that pop up somewhere in the infinite empty space as it not excepted to observe all the tiny particles inside the atom itself although it is in front of our Eyes.
Therefore, for those tiny particles we must use real theory as Quantum theory:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."

Therefore, as quantum theory proves that Virtual particles are real - then they are real without any need to see them.
It is similar to any tiny boson that exists in our universe.
All are real without the need to observe them.
Unless you claim that quantum theory is wrong.

Parity violation doesn't have anything to do with particles surviving annihilations.

Can you please explain that statement (and offer article about it)?

[Kryptid]

Unless you claim that quantum theory is wrong.

According to your rules, we would have to discard any aspect of quantum theory that isn't based on real observations and measurements. So those aspects that are purely mathematical must be put in the trash.

Can you please explain that statement (and offer article about it)?

What is there to explain? It's like saying that the Saturn V rocket doesn't have anything to do with tacos. Parity violation during particle decay means that either a right-handed decay or a left-handed decay happens more often than expected. That doesn't do anything at all to help virtual particles avoid annihilating each other.