[Bored chemist]

I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.

But
(1) you don't know what you are talking about
(2) you are wrong
(3) pair production is the opposite of annihilation, so if one works, the other must.

And we know that annihilation works very well.

 

Do you see how knowing science would stop you making stupid comments?

[Kryptid]

I 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

[Dave Lev]

I 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

In the article it is stated
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
"It is considered that proton and antiproton pair production in two photon collision is one of the simplest processes in the reaction of baryon production."

I wonder how can we even assume that proton and antiproton pair production could be created by two photon collision due to the relative mass between Proton to Photon.

We know that the proton mass =1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms
However, "According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943
Hence, the total mass of proton is higher by 1.6 10 ^ 27 than a photon

1.6726219 × 10^-27 Kg /  10^-54 Kg = 1.6 10 ^ 27

However, based on the data of pair production the energy/mass of the photon must be above the new created pair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the photon must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles,

So, how can we even believe that a collision between two photons with a "non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg" (each), could be converted to a pair of proton/antiproton with 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms (each).
Is it real?

We all know that there are three quarks and gluons in a single proton
https://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.
Hence, we can assume the mass/energy in those three quarks energy/mass is about 1.6 10^25  (1% of 1.6^10^27) than a photon.
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?

[Kryptid]

Have you ever heard of E=mc²?

[Bored chemist]

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?

Because the alternative is to believe you, and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You are so poorly informed that you think it' you who is right, and the rest of the world that's mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[evan_au]

The very recent experiment revealed (a photon's) non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg

The article states that this represents the effective mass of a photon when interacting with dispersive matter.
- When we talk about the zero rest mass of a photon, we mean a mass that could (in principle) be observed in a vacuum.

this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.

Photons creating a single one of anything would violate a number of conservation laws.

That's why the process is called "pair production".
- Two uncharged photons can't produce one charged electron; but it can produce an electron and a positron (anti-electron)

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).
- In theory, the interactions in a Feynman diagram are reversible. But in practice, some interactions are much more likely than the other (a target with a larger cross-section).
- The mass-energy going in is equal to the mass-energy coming out.
- 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
- There are plenty of nuclear decay processes that produce gamma rays around 1 MeV, which could produce an electron/positron pair
- I am not aware of any natural processes we see on Earth that could produce gamma rays of this energy range
             - it is extremely unlikely that two such gamma rays would meet up. Which is why pair production is most often seen in interactions of photons with matter (the matter helps with conservation of momentum)
- Although it is thought that such high energy levels would have been common in the early universe (and could theoretically be produced in a particle collider - especially if it were colliding protons and anti-protons!)
a
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

[Bored chemist]

As kryptid was kind enough to point out.
This isn't a question.
It has been done.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
The problem here is not science- which follows evidence, but Dave- who doesn't.


Is there a really good reason not to ban Dave in order to spot him polluting the site with nonsense (which the grown-ups then have to correct)?

[Dave Lev]

Thanks evan_au
Do appreciate your answer.

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).

Well, we all know that in order to covert photon energy into electron/positron pair we must use Gamma photon.
Therefore, it is very clear that the energy in that Gamma photon must be higher than the energy of the created particle (as electron/positron).
Do you have an idea how much higher?
Let's assume that it is n times higher.
Based on that, in order to convert a gamma photon to proton, then even if it carries 2000 Times the energy of a normal photon, it isn't good enough.
It must be at least n * 2000 times.

- 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?
What is the chance for that?
Please also be aware that in order to accomplish the pair proton/antiproton creation, the gamma photons must collide with each other.
So, what is the chance that those gamma photons would collide with each other while all the space of the universe is in process of ultra high expansion/inflation?
Therefore, only those photons with ultra high energetic that collide with each other might be converted to proton/antiproton
What is the chance for that activity?

After all of that we must reconsider the mystery of the missing antiproton.
Based on this theory, for any new created proton, there must be a new created antiproton.
So, where are all the missing antiprotons are hiding?

How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
It is not just a minor issue.
Actually as any Hydrogen Atom carries Proton, then where is all the missing Anti-hydrogen?
So, for any star or galaxy that we see in our universe there is a missing "antistar" or "antigalaxy" that had to be made out of antiprotons.
There must be some logic in the missing antiprotons.
They can't just hiding around the corner.
As there are almost no antiproton, then why can't we understand that the proton isn't created by a normal "pair particle creation" as it is a composite particle.
Why can't we assume that Only elementary particles as electron/positron can be created in that pair creation, while a composite particle must be created at a different way than this pair creation?

I would compare it to car creation as it is based on composite components/parts.
We don't just pull a trigger and get a new car.
This car must be assembled in the production line from many elementary components/parts.
In the same token, as proton is based on composite particles, we must understand how that proton could be assembled in the universe. Why can't we verify what kind of production line is needed for the creation of a proton or Hydrogen atom?

[Bored chemist]

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?

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.

No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.

Let's assume that it is n times higher.

Why make assumptions?
We can do science.
And Evan did the work for you (It's a pity you didn't understand that).

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?

It is a virtual certainty. There are huge numbers of high energy photons in a very small space.
Some of them are bound to collide.

How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".

Because that is the answer supported by  the evidence.

Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.

No
You really do not understand science.
It is full of things that we don't know (particularly "we don't know why...")

There must be some logic in the missing antiprotons.

Yes, and we are working on it.
If we did as you said and  didn't face up to the fact that "we don't know" we couldn't hope to make progress, could we?

Why can't we assume that Only elementary particles as electron/positron can be created in that pair creation

because it would be absurd to assume something which we know is wrong.
We have seen pair production of proton/ antiproton pairs.
Do you really not understands that?
Why are you saying we should lie about it?

I would compare it to car creation as it is based on composite components/parts.

Nobody who understood any science would make that comparison.

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.

[Kryptid]

How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"

Because we don't know.

Sorry, 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.

[charles1948]

Aren't Quarks supposed to possess "fractional" electric charges - ie, 1/3, 2/3?

If so, what does this mean for the "electron".

 As far as I understand modern physics, the "electron" is the fundamental unit of electric charge. And is a truly "point-like" particle.  Which can't be "split" or divided into fractional components, such as "1/3rd of an electron"

But doesn't that fly against the idea that a quark can contain "1/3rd of an electric charge"?

[charles1948]

How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"

Because we don't know.

Sorry, 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"?

[Bored chemist]

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"?

No
It's just a different way to say "I dunno"

[Kryptid]

When it doesn't know the answer,  it makes up a theory.

No, it makes a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and is backed by evidence. Until you have the needed evidence to test the hypothesis, you are stuck at the "we don't know" stage.

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.

[Dave Lev]

How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"

Because we don't know.

Sorry, 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.

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?
Do you confirm that for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom?
Therefore, for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom, for any star there must be anti-star that is made out of Anti hydrogen, for any BH there must be Anti-BH and for any Galaxy there must be Anti-galaxy.
So, do you confirm that for the same Universe that we see there must be Anti-universe that we don't see?
What about the Anti-dark energy and Anti-dark matter?

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.

If I understand you correctly, you offer an idea that in our Infinite space there might be other observable Universe made out of 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.
This is all about science.
A full set of Anti-Universe is missing! So, it is not just a small mystery that we can set under the carpet.
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?
However, when it comes to the BBT, our scientists insist to fit the theory to the observation and then claim that they "don't know".
Sorry - we all know.
There is almost no antiprotons/antimatter in our Universe.  if we don't see antimatter in our universe then why can't we understand that this Antimatter had not been created?
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton instead of looking for those missing antiprotons at a different/anti observable universe?

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?

[Dave Lev]

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.

Sorry - a proton is made out of three quarks and gluons as I have already explained:
 

We all know that there are three quarks and gluons in a single proton
https://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.

So, about 99% of the energy/mass of the proton comes from that gluons.
Our scientists claim that the quarks are real particles however there is no particle that is called "gluons".
Hence, the gluons is actually only some sort of "Glue" that glues the three quarks together in order to form a proton.
I wonder if the name of gluons comes from "glues".
Therefore, as there is no way to create gluons and Anti-gluons by pair process, why can't we consider the possibility that it is also impossible to create Proton and antiproton by pair process.

If you still insist to hold that pair proton creation while we all know that it is a composite particle, why other composite particles can't be created by the same pair process?
For example, Hydrogen atom is a clear composite particle as it includes all the components of a protons plus single electron.
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair (that we call Atoms)
Why it can't create Gold/Anti-gold atoms?
In this case, the universe wouldn't have to wait for more than 300M years to get its first Hydrogen Atom and there is no need to bomb hydrogen star in order to get other atoms as gold and iron.
All the Atoms/antiatoms are there by this magic concept of pair process.
Hence, all we need is extra gamma energy and we have a clear confirmation for that:

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.

So, why can't we assume that those gamma photons could carry 200,000 more energetic than a photon?
In this case they could create 100 times more energy/mass in a single proton.
As the total energy/mass in a single proton is very similar to Hydrogen atom then why by achieving 100 times more energy we can't get 100 times more energetic atoms from that pair process?

[Dave Lev]

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.

Well, if you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be a Big.. SMBH.
No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.
The Big Bang should end before it starts as a Big..SMBH.
Even at this moment you can't explain why the space of the Universe is expanding.
You take it for granted.
However, we know that there is no free lunch in our Universe.
If we want to create matter we need to invest energy.
In the same token - if we want to create space and even time we need to invest something.
Do you agree that we don't know what kind of investment is needed to create the space/time of our Universe and if it is feasible at all to create a space time out of nothing?

There are huge numbers of high energy photons in a very small space.
Some of them are bound to collide.

What do you mean by some?
The whole idea of the Big Bang is that the matter isn't moving in space but the space itself is moving.
Therefore, even if the space itself is moving at 3 billion times the speed of light, the photons don't get extra energy do to that activity. They are just moving at the normal velocity as any photon/gamma photon while the expanding space carries them at different directions at its ultra expanding speed..
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Could it be that it is below 0.0...1%?
Hence somehow it seems that the whole BBT is based on a very low chance:
1. Low chance to get those ultra high energetic Gamma Photons
2. Low chance for them to collide with each other
3. Low chance to overcome the annihilation process after the pair creation
4. Low chance that the Anti-proton or anti-Universe is hiding somewhere.
5. Low chance that the infinite (or large) space-time of our Universe could be created out of nothing.
6. Low chance that the universe didn't end as a Big SMBH.
This is just a small list...

So, how can we base a real theory for our Universe on a long list of low chances (or we "don't know"?

[jeffreyH]

Observations should drive science. Theories are often developed to solve mysteries that arise in science. One of those mysteries is the domination of matter over anti-matter.

Just because anti-matter can be produced under certain conditions does not mean accepted science is wrong. It is an observation that needs to be explained. Various theories have been developed to explain this.

All this is distinctly different to the questions arising from the conditions after the big bang.

[Bored chemist]

Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?

Probably, but there's at least one other hypothesis- that for some unknown reason, the symmetry is broken.

If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?

Well, it could be, if it is outside our visible universe.

But that's never going to be observable, so it is not subject to scientific testing.

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.

No.
The whole point is that we don't need an explanation- it just happened by chance.

you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions

It really would help if you paid attention.

[Bored chemist]

If I understand you correctly, you offer an idea that in our Infinite space there might be other observable Universe made out of antimatter.

As is often the case, you do not understand.
Any such "other universe" is not observable.

I wonder if the name of gluons comes from "glues".

It does. Subatomic physicists are known for their odd sense of humour.

A full set of Anti-Universe is missing!

Or, more likely, it's just too far away for us to ever see it.

It is a fatal problem for the current mainstream theory.

No, not at all.

Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?

It does.
Your ideas, on the other hand, do not. I will come back to that.

Why it can't create Gold/Anti-gold atoms?

It could, but in those conditions the temperatures are so high that the gold nuclei would, in effect boil.
The atoms would be torn apart into their constituent protons and electrons.
It really was very hot back then.

That's yet another instance of you asking a question because you just don't understand the science.

Why don't you go and learn it?

Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton

No, because charge conservation makes that impossible.
There is no such process. What do you think it means to "verify" something which can not exist?

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.

One explanation which a bright 7 year old might come up with is that the antimatter is simply too far away for us to see it.

Why can you not understand that idea?

If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?

If you understood the theory, you would understand that it does resolve the enigma.
The problem is not that the theory is wrong.
The problem is that you do not understand.

So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair

It does.
It has been seen to do so.
Here is the opening of the paper showing the details.
"Proton Antiproton Pair Production in
Two Photon Collisions
Hiroshi Hamasaki
Institute of Applied Physics,
University of Tsukuba
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
(VENUS collaboration)
Abstract
A measurement of the cross section for 77 -+ pp was made at
two-photon center-of-mass energies (W) between 2.2 and 3.4 GeV.
This results were obtained using e+
e~ —* e
+
e~pp events selected from
data samples for an integrated luminosity of lQO^pb"1
 taken with the
VENUS detector at the TRISTAN.
There is a marked contrast in the angular distribution of the cross
section between at the high W range (2.2 < W < 2.5 GeV) and at
the low W range (2.5 < W < 3.0 GeV). The integrated cross section
(| cos0*| < 0.6) is in good agreement with previous measure"

Now, do you remember saying this?

Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?

Well, the observation is that we can produce proton antiproton pairs.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.