[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:03:34
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.

According to my rules quantum theory is 100% correct and I fully accept it as is.
So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

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.

Do you claim that when the BBT energy had been transformed into real particles, the annihilating process didn't work?
If so, why our scientists claim that based on the BBT "Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy"?

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"
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "

As I have proved by quantum virtual particles are real particles.
So, please explain why one of a billion particle pairs (that had been created by the imagination BBT energy) can be asymmetry, while that process can't work with a similar real particle (that had been created by real VE energy).
Do you mean that only those particles that had been created by that imagination BBT energy are real and can cross the symmetry problem while the particles that had been created by real energy (as VE) are not real and can't do so?
Would you kindly prove that understanding by relevant article?

[Bored chemist]

So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.

No.
Obviously not.
That's why we call them virtual.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.

No.
Obviously not.
That's why we call them virtual.

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.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:

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.

If you still don't understand the meaning of the above then I'm clearly wasting my time.

[Kryptid]

So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

Then you are contradicting yourself:

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

Do you claim that when the BBT energy had been transformed into real particles, the annihilating process didn't work?

I don't make any claims about the BBT. It's in the garbage.

As I have proved by quantum virtual particles are real particles.
So, please explain why one of a billion particle pairs (that had been created by the imagination BBT energy) can be asymmetry, while that process can't work with a similar real particle (that had been created by real VE energy).
Do you mean that only those particles that had been created by that imagination BBT energy are real and can cross the symmetry problem while the particles that had been created by real energy (as VE) are not real and can't do so?
Would you kindly prove that understanding by relevant article?

I don't care about whatever the Big Bang theory says because it's in the garbage. It's assumed to be wrong. So stop asking me about it.

If you think parity violation can make virtual particles become real, then explain to me how that works. Describe the mechanism in detail.

[Bored chemist]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:

I understand it.

You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:16:37
So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

Then you are contradicting yourself:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/07/2020 13:37:28
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Therefore, if you can prove the BBT based on quantum theory, then this theory should be real.
However, if you take some formulas and manipulate the math by assumptions over assumptions and then claim that you have a mathematical prove for the BBT imagination - then you are absolutely wrong.

I don't make any claims about the BBT. It's in the garbage.

We must compare theory to theory on the same platform and ideas.
Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBT while in the same token it is forbidden to be used by theory D.

If you think parity violation can make virtual particles become real, then explain to me how that works. Describe the mechanism in detail.

Sorry
I don't have to explain it.
I can use the explanation from out scientists.
They clearly explain that Virtual particles that had been created by the VE are real particles.
They also explain how the parity works for the "real" particles that had been created by the BBT energy.
As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.
If you claim that our scientists have a severe mistake with the parity, then please don't ask me about it.
You have to ask then about this idea.

However, I would add some highlight about my understanding.
I claim that any new pair must be a pair.
Therefore, at any infinite no. of pairs, the total no. of the particles/matter must be identical to the antiparticles/antimatter.
Not one in a billion and not even one in infinite. Just the same number.
The only change is that due to asymmetry or parity, one in a billion would not be annihilated immediately after pop up.
So, we would get at the end in the open space exactly the same infinite free particles as infinite free antiparticles.
Not even one more from anyone.

if free particle will meet a free antiparticle - they would be annihilated.
If free particle will spiral around other free particle - they would merge. As they merge they would keep their spin momentum and be considered as the tiniest BH in the Universe.
If free antiparticle will spiral around other free antiparticle - they would also merge and set tiniest anti-BH.
There is a possibility for tiniest BH to spiral around tiniest BH and merge as there is a possibility for tiniest Anti-BH to spiral around tiniest anti-BH and also merge.
However, it is very clear that if tiniest BH would spiral around tiniest anti-BH they would be annihilated.

Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.
If that spinning tinny BH (or Anti-BH) would have enough EM energy, it would open the door for theory D to work.
As we don't see the any antimatter in our Universe it means that the tinny BH won the game and had been created first.
This tinny BH would be the mother and father to all the matter that exists in the entire Universe.

[Kryptid]

As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

Then you are still contradicting yourself. You can't deny what you have said in the past that I am readily capable of quoting. You said that math alone can't be used as evidence. Anyone can go read it. It looks like you are trying to manipulate your own rules in order to get what you want.

Therefore, if you can prove the BBT based on quantum theory, then this theory should be real.
However, if you take some formulas and manipulate the math by assumptions over assumptions and then claim that you have a mathematical prove for the BBT imagination - then you are absolutely wrong.

I can't and never claimed that I could.

Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBT while in the same token it is forbidden to be used by theory D.

I never made that claim.

I can use the explanation from out scientists.

Then tell me what that explanation is, exactly.

As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.

Which does nothing to prevent virtual particles from annihilating each other and disappearing back into the vacuum.

If you claim that our scientists have a severe mistake with the parity, then please don't ask me about it.

They aren't the ones that made the mistake, you are.

You have to ask then about this idea.

This suggests that you don't actually understand how parity violation is supposed to keep particles from annihilating. Do you know or do you not know?

The only change is that due to asymmetry or parity, one in a billion would not be annihilated immediately after pop up.

This is the part you need to elaborate on. I haven't seen any kind of explanation posted about how parity violation is supposed to actually keep virtual particles from annihilating each other. Do you actually know how that is supposed to work?

Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.

Unless the probability is 0.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBT

He doesn't.
He has dumped the BBT.
So he can say that you aren't allowed to rely on aspects of it.
For example, the BBT explains the VE.
So you can't rely on it.

More importantly.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:

I understand it.

You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
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]

It is amusing to note that I had to work very hard to get Dave to believe in the VE.

Now he thinks he can lecture me on it, while he still does not understand it.

Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.
So, the Universe won't let you to borrow energy if there was no energy over there.

And it is far from normal in the vacuum ; but it happens.
As I have pointed ot several times before, it's an aspect of quantum mechanics.
You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.

Did you know that?

You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.

So, I have shown that pair production happens in what you say are the early conditions of the universe.

It's just that you won't listen.

[Bored chemist]

Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.

Maybe.
But f it is, then after another infinite length of time there would be another black hole.
And so on.
So, eventually, you end up  with the Universe entirely full of BH.
But it isn't.
So you are wrong.
The chances of making a black hole must be zero.
Any number bigger than zero, in an infinite time, gives an infinite number of BH.
It's fairly simple arithmetic.
Any number times infinity gives you infinity.

[alancalverd]

Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.

[Bored chemist]

Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.

I thought about that; the problem is that many of them will merge and more massive ones take longer to evaporate (and, in the laughable fiction were Dave is right,  there will be lots of new ones to merge with the old big ones.)

[Kryptid]

Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.

Dave doesn't think black holes can evaporate. He denies Hawking radiation, which is ironic, given that he recently made this statement:

As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

Given that Hawking radiation is a purely mathematical (at this point, anyway) aspect of quantum theory, he should think that it is real. It's just another contradiction.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01
As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.

Then you are still contradicting yourself. You can't deny what you have said in the past that I am readily capable of quoting. You said that math alone can't be used as evidence. Anyone can go read it. It looks like you are trying to manipulate your own rules in order to get what you want.

There is no contradiction.
Math of real science as quantum is real.
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01
As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.

Which does nothing to prevent virtual particles from annihilating each other and disappearing back into the vacuum.

If that process can work for the BBT, why it can't work for theory D?

This is the part you need to elaborate on. I haven't seen any kind of explanation posted about how parity violation is supposed to actually keep virtual particles from annihilating each other. Do you actually know how that is supposed to work?

Actually, I have an Idea
It is all about Quantum vacuum state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_state
According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

So, the space is full with electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
If the virtual particle pair pops up exactly at some electromagnetic wave, it can split the pair due to their electric charge (based on Lorenz force)

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.

Unless the probability is 0

It can't be just zero
Do you agree that:
1. VE is real.
2. Particle and antiparticle could exist in the infinite Universe.
3. The universe isn't fully symmetrical, so there could be locations with more particles than antiparticles and Vice versa.
Hence, if you take it to the infinite space and infinite time - You must get at least one Tinny BH.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.

Maybe.
But f it is, then after another infinite length of time there would be another black hole.
And so on.
So, eventually, you end up  with the Universe entirely full of BH.

Theoretically, you are correct.
However, after the creation of the first tinny BH theory D starts to work and can set our wonderful Universe.

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 19:50:51
Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.

Dave doesn't think black holes can evaporate.He denies Hawking radiation,

That is correct.
There is no negative mass therefore hawking radiation is just nonsense.

Given that Hawking radiation is a purely mathematical (at this point, anyway) aspect of quantum theory, he should think that it is real. It's just another contradiction.

If you set nonsense (negative mass) in your real math you still get nonsense.

[Kryptid]

There is no contradiction.

It contradicts this earlier statement of yours:

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.

Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, which means this quote applies to it:

Math of real science as quantum is real.

So if the math of quantum mechanics is acceptable by itself as evidence, then Hawking radiation has to be acceptable too because Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum mechanics.

If that process can work for the BBT, why it can't work for theory D?

First of all, I never said that it could. Second of all, the quantum vacuum doesn't behave the same way as matter in the early Universe in the Big Bang model does. There doesn't even appear to be consensus among physicists over whether virtual particles are real or not. Some physicists say that they are just a mathematical tool: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/?sh=431df3201059

So, the space is full with electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
If the virtual particle pair pops up exactly at some electromagnetic wave, it can split the pair due to their electric charge (based on Lorenz force)

Please explain how a photon (which is the quantum of an electromagnetic wave) is going to produce any kind of Lorentz force on a virtual particle pair. Has such a thing ever been observed?

Hence, if you take it to the infinite space and infinite time - You must get at least one Tinny BH.

That doesn't follow.

If you set nonsense (negative mass) in your real math you still get nonsense.

How do you know that negative mass is nonsense? It could just be that negative mass exists in some way that we haven't detected it (such as existing inside of black holes, which would make it completely unobservable).

[Bored chemist]

However, after the creation of the first tinny BH theory D starts to work and can set our wonderful Universe.

For a start, that's not true your "theory" can't work because it breaks the conservation of mass.
You may recall that I proved this earlier.

But that's beside the point.
The presence of our universe doesn't prevent the VE.
So, if you were right, there would still be an infinite number of BH as well as our universe and that's plainly wrong.

Did you know that you are allowed to think through your own foolish ideas?
You don't have to embarrass yourself by posting them here and wasting everyone's time.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 18:46:29
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 13:46:31
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:
I understand it.

You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.


Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 11:09:50
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:11:50
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.

Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, which means this quote applies to it:

No, it is not due to quantum.
Hawking radiation is due wrong understanding about energy conservation law:
https://ysjournal.com/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-what-problems-has-it-brought-to-physics/
"To understand Hawking radiation we must first understand that there is no such thing as empty space. Even a vacuum is a bath of bubbling particles, spontaneously appearing and then disappearing. "
"In order for energy to be conserved the particle falling into the black hole must have a perceived negative energy. Since negative energy means negative mass (because of Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence principle, shown in the formula E=mc2) it therefore follows that the mass of the black hole decreases. This means that if a black hole does not take in any other type of energy it will shrink until it disappears: that is why Hawking radiation is also known as black hole evaporation."

So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.

However, he made a sever mistake.
Somehow, the energy in our universe must be created somewhere.
If it was created outside our current universe (as some Brane imagination) then it is your first obligation to prove that there is outside location as brane.
Then, as real scientists your next mission is to explain how the energy had been created at that outside location without breaking the conservation law))
Without those two vital steps, your BBT is useless.
Sorry,  you all believe that the BBT is the ultimate theory  as you all share the same wrong understanding that our universe can't bypass the energy conservation law.
It seems that you all are locked in that energy conservation black room without finding your way out.
Actually you all would love to stay there at the darkness happily forever and ever.
You have no ability to understand that there is no outside of our Universe as it goes up to the infinity.
Therefore, you must accept the idea that all the energy/mass in our infinite universe must be created in our universe over time.
Theory D fully explains how that mechanism works.
Therefore, Hawking radiation is nonsense not due to quantum math but due to the wrong assumption that our universe can't create new energy/mass.

Please - let me open the light for you, as it is very dark and dense in that dark room where all of you are locked (You also need some fresh air especially with that covid-19)!

Theory D is actually the Darwinism theory for the Universe evolvement.
As Darwin explained how all the variety of life had been evolved from the first Ameba, my task is to explain how the variety of matter, atoms... stars and even galaxies web - had been evolved from that tinny BH in the empty universe up to the infinity.

We are just wasting our time at that phase.
So, please let's move on to theory D while we have got the first tinny BH in the empty infinite Universe.

[Bored chemist]

Somehow, the energy in our universe must be created somewhere.

We have known for a hundred years that mass/ energy  is conserved.
It is proven (by Emmy Noether) to be true.
Anyone who says it is not true is either stupid or dishonest.
Which are you?

Also, you have failed to explain why the universe is not full of BH
And...

Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 18:46:29
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 13:46:31
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:
I understand it.

You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.


Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 11:09:50
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
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.

You can't defend your idea because, as you know, it is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We have known for a hundred years that mass/ energy  is conserved.
It is proven (by Emmy Noether) to be true.
Anyone who says it is not true is either stupid or dishonest.

Emmy Noether theory is correct by 100%. Conservation law is also correct by 100%.
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand it?