0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.
Do you see how knowing science would stop you making stupid comments?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/03/2021 21:42:09I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.Well, you're wrong: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
Therefore, it is clear that this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.So, how can we believe in that imagination of creating protons pair from photon collision?
The very recent experiment revealed (a photon's) non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg
this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.
So, how can we even believe that a collision between two photons ... could be converted to a pair of proton/antiproton with 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms (each).
The same we can believe that a collision between two photons ... could be converted to a pair of electron/antielectron with 9.1093837015(28)×10−31 kilograms (each).
- But because the proton is about 2000 times more massive than an electron, it takes photons around 2000 times more energetic to produce a proton/antiproton pair
So, is it realistic that the photon which had been created by the Big Bang would carry so much energy just to be considered as Ultra high energetic gamma photon that is needed for the pair Proton creation?
Let's assume that it is n times higher.
But because the proton is about 2000 times more massive than an electron, it takes photons around 2000 times more energetic to produce a proton/antiproton pair
What is the chance for that activity?
How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
There must be some logic in the missing antiprotons.
Why can't we assume that Only elementary particles as electron/positron can be created in that pair creation
I would compare it to car creation as it is based on composite components/parts.
How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"
QuoteHow can we accept the answer of "we don't know"Because we don't know.QuoteSorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.Well, that's too bad, because we don't. Do you seriously think there shouldn't be any mysteries in science? Do you think we are supposed to make up answers when we don't have them? That's not how science works.
I thought that's exactly how Science works. When it doesn't know the answer, it makes up a theory. Sometimes the theory turns out to be correct. Other times, it doesn't.But either way, isn't it better than saying "Well, I dunno"?
When it doesn't know the answer, it makes up a theory.
Here's an example of a hypothesis regarding the missing antimatter: the Universe is infinite (or, at least, "sufficiently large"). Since any and all possible combination of events must occur somewhere in an infinite Universe, you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions without annihilating with each other. Then you end up with a region that is matter-dominated and one that is antimatter dominated. If the size of this matter-dominated region is larger than the visible Universe, then you end up with a place that looks a lot like where we live. Now the problem: how do you test it? Until you can perform the needed experiment, this hypothesis is stuck at the "I don't know" stage.
Do you understand that a proton is made of quarks, but that it's essentially impossible to get a quark on its own?Did you know that?If you try to break a proton into individual quarks the extra energy you need to add to split them apart actually goes into making more of them.It's weird, but that is what happens.If you knew about the science you would know that.
We all know that there are three quarks and gluons in a single protonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton"Protons are spin fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[11] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons"However, the total mass in those three quarks represents about 1% of the proton' mass, while the gluons contributes 99% of the proton' mass.
Yes.If you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be very hot.There will be lots of extremely high energy photons there.
If you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be very hot.There will be lots of extremely high energy photons there.No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.
There are huge numbers of high energy photons in a very small space.Some of them are bound to collide.
Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?
If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?
However, in this case, we would need to explain why the matter had been separated from the antimatter and moved to absolutely different observable universe.
you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions
If I understand you correctly, you offer an idea that in our Infinite space there might be other observable Universe made out of antimatter.
I wonder if the name of gluons comes from "glues".
A full set of Anti-Universe is missing!
It is a fatal problem for the current mainstream theory.
Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?
Why it can't create Gold/Anti-gold atoms?
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
As long as we claim that a proton must be created at that pair process with its anti-proton, it is our obligation to solve the missing anti-universe.
If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair