[Bored chemist]

However, we know that there is no free lunch in our Universe.

It's good to know that you accept this now.
It is the reason why your "theory D" was nonsense.

In science, we not only know that it is true, but we know why it is true.
It is a consequence of the symmetry of the universe with respect to time.
(essentially, because tomorrow looks pretty much the same as yesterday).

But that raises an interesting point.
At the moment of the start of the universe, there is no "yesterday"
So it figures that, at that moment, the symmetry is broken.
And that means that Noether's theorem can not be applied.
And that, in turn, means that we can create energy and/ or mass.

It's a "one time only deal", but at that instant, we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe, in fact.

I feel sorry for you that you do not understand the beauty of that explanation.

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?

We could, but they would get torn apart.
The process is called "spallation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Nuclear_spallation

What do you mean by some?

I mean more than none, but not all.
That's what the word means.

Why did you ask?

, the photons don't get extra energy do to that activity.

Nobody said they did.

Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?

Very high.
Because there area huge number of them, in a very small space.
Surely you recognise that it is common sense that the tighter you pack them the more likely they are to hit.

Could it be that it is below 0.0...1%?

No.
That's like saying if you blindfolded all the drivers going round the  Arc de Triomphe roundabout in the centre of Paris, none of them would bump into eachother.

It's just silly.

Hence somehow it seems that the whole BBT is based on a very low chance:

no.
You lied when you said that you knew about those probabilities.

Why do you not learn science?
Why do you lie?

[Kryptid]

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?

Yes, that's why it's a mystery.

What about the Anti-dark energy and Anti-dark matter?

Dark energy isn't matter, so we wouldn't expect there to be an antimatter version of it. We also don't know if dark matter has an antimatter counterpart.

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.

My hypothesis said that it would have been pure chance. All the particles moved in just the right way to miss each other and move to different regions. It's absurdly improbable, but that doesn't matter in an infinite universe. Anything with a probability above 0 must occur in an infinite universe. By the way, I'm not advocating that the hypothesis I posted was correct. I was only using it as an example of an untested hypothesis.

Sorry - we all know.

No, we don't.

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

Any such process would have to consistent with conservation laws.

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

We can, when we find the evidence for it.

[Dave Lev]

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)
 

Well, I also read that article:
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
I couldn't find there some answers to the following questions:
1. How they have overcome the proton/antiproton annihilation process.
It was just stated: "Contaminations from other processes such as pp production from beamgas and beam-wall and from single photon annihilation (ee —> pp) are considered to be very small and these contributions are neglected".
It seems that they care about the photon annihilation, but they don't care about the proton/antiproton annihilation.
They have decided to neglect the photon annihilation while in the same token they also ignore completely the probability for proton/antiproton annihilation at the same moment of their creation.
2. How the detector knows that it detects antiproton:
It is stated: " The variable W is the invariant mass of two charged particles which are assumed to be protons"
What does it mean: "assume to be proton". Does it mean that they assume that W means protons and therefore they have got the proton by W.
What about the antiproton assume?
3. How they have forced the antiproton to move directly to that "assumed" detector?
4.
Nuclear_spallation
You have offered the following article:

The process is called "spallation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Nuclear_spallation

It is stated:
"A particle beam consisting of protons at around 1 GeV are shot into a target consisting of mercury, tantalum, lead[1] or another heavy metal. The target nuclei are excited and upon deexcitation, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled per nucleus. Although this is a far more expensive way of producing neutron beams than by a chain reaction of nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor,"
So, theoretically, if a proton/antiproton had been created why they could potentially start a chain reaction of nuclear fission?
5
Antimatter collision with real matter.
Do we have an idea what might be the outcome of a collision between antimatter to real matter?
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?

How they could take so high risk in that experiment?
Sorry - that article is just nonsense.
I'm quite sure that no one from our "real science community" tried to do it again.
However, our science community are using that kind of nonsense just to prove that Proton/antiproton can be created from Photon.

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

The idea that we can produce Proton+Abtiproton in a lab doesn't mean that the Universe would use exactly the same scenario.
If it would, then we had to see equal no. of protons and antiprotons.
If we don't see it, then it is a solid prove that the universe works differently from that lab.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:46:45
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair

It does.

If it does, then why our scientists claim that it took the early universe 300MY to get the first hydrogen atom?

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

This is incorrect (I do not wish to use the word "lie"...)
The "observation" means what do we observe in our universe.
Mr Hiroshi Hamasaki tried to convert the energy of photon to Proton in his lab without any real science' control/verification.
How can you call this poor experiment as "Observation"?
The real observation tells us that there is no antimatter/antiproton in our Universe.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.

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.

There is no Mystery in our observation.
The Universe tells us that there is no Antimatter in it.
We can accept this observation or we can reject it.
 I would like to tell you a story about similar Mystery of the missing seeds in the watermelon:
One day, the people of the city of Chelm have got a special delivery of watermelons without seeds.
They open the first one and surprisingly (for them) there were no seeds in that watermelon.
All the "Wise Men from Chelm" came to see this mystery: How could it be that a watermelon has no seeds?
One of them said that if the planet took all the seeds from one watermelon, then the other one must get the extra seeds.
Therefore, they open all the other watermelons in order to find the missing seeds without any success
Even at this moment they keep looking for the missing seeds…..

This brief story represents our current approach to real science.
Our scientists don't see any antimatter/antiprotons in our current Universe.
However, they have developed a theory of pair particle process and somehow our universe is not cooperative with this theory.
Therefore, they are very upset and call this missing antimatter as "mystery".
They don't care that this pair process doesn't aim for a composite particle. They also don't care that 99% of the proton mass/energy is based on gluons which is not particle at all.
However, as long as they would believe in their theory, our universe must do whatever they tell him to do.
If the universe doesn't obey to this will, they will look for other universe that meets the theory.
Therefore - while the current universe doesn't obey to our current BBT theory, we are looking today for other universe that meets our expectation for antimatter. So we are ready to change our current Universe with far away undetected universe just in order to keep our current theory alive.
In other words - we are ready to change our universe in order to find a fit to our theory, but we are not willing to change our theory in order to set a fit with our current Universe.

Just because anti-matter can be produced under certain conditions does not mean accepted science is wrong

We don't see antimatter while based on our theory it must be there. If still this moment we have no real answer why it is missing, then how could you claim that it doesn't mean that our theory is wrong?.

It is an observation that needs to be explained.

The observation is very clear. There are no antimatter in our universe.

Various theories have been developed to explain this.

Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?

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

So, if the Universe tells us that it doesn't accept the BBT, why don't we look for better theory?
Are we waiting for god to come down and open the light for us?
Why this key contradiction in our observation is not good enough to eliminate the BBT?

At the moment of the start of the universe, there is no "yesterday"
So it figures that, at that moment, the symmetry is broken.
And that means that Noether's theorem can not be applied.
And that, in turn, means that we can create energy and/ or mass.

It's a "one time only deal", but at that instant, we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe, in fact.

I feel sorry for you that you do not understand the beauty of that explanation.

I have no problem with this explanation.
This is your theory and you can set any sort of starting point including the idea of "we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe".
However, once you have the energy you need to explain how it could evolve from that point of time by real science law.
Therefore, it is perfectly OK to claim that all the Universe energy had been delivered free of charge to a universe space at a size of proton. however, from this moment of time you need to explain why the Universe would expand its space.
So our scientists just focus on energy/mass. Not even a single explantion why a universe with a size of proton would expand itself by one picomillimeter. Don't forget that at the inflation process the Universe must expand at almost 30 Billion times the speed of light. Prove it please by real science.
Why a space would be increased at all?
Why don't you offer the mathematics for that?
What kind of energy is needed to increase the space of our universe (especially at that ultra high velocity at the inflation time)?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:52:16
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Very high.
Because there area huge number of them, in a very small space.

Is it real?
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
So, please - you can't just use the benefit of small space (based on the BBT theory) while you totally ignore the impact of that extreme expansion velocity.

My hypothesis said that it would have been pure chance. All the particles moved in just the right way to miss each other and move to different regions. It's absurdly improbable, but that doesn't matter in an infinite universe. Anything with a probability above 0 must occur in an infinite universe. By the way, I'm not advocating that the hypothesis I posted was correct. I was only using it as an example of an untested hypothesis

Well, it seems that we always prefer the "chance" that supports the BBT.
When it comes to the chance for a photons to collide with each other as the early Universe is expanding much faster than the speed of light - we are sure that the chance is high just in order to support the BBT.
Now when it comes to the idea that the Antimatter shouldn't collide with the existing matter in our current universe then the chance for that is very low - in order to support other request of the BBT.
Sorry - the chance for the energetic photons to collide with each other must be identical to the proton/antiproton to collide with each other
Please chose the chance as you wish – but please don't change it according to your request..
They both are located at the same universe.
So, if the proton could move to different aria without colliding with antiprotons, then also the energetic photon should move to different aria without colliding with each other.
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:25:41
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton

Any such process would have to consistent with conservation laws.

I fully agree with that.
So, please let's try to find a process that consistent with conservation laws which could work and explain how particles could be created without antiparticle.
Please remember that proton is a composite particle while gluons isn't particle at all.
Only quark represents a single real particle.
Therefore, each quark could be created by that pair particle process.
However, as there is no antiparticle in our Universe, it tells us that the pair process isn't applicable for the proton creation process.
Hence, somehow the three new created quarks of the proton must get the extra gluons in order to be converted to proton.
In this case, the proton could be created without antiproton and still be consistent with conservation laws
It seems to me that the gluons represents electromagnetic energy that is locked by the three quarks.
So, we must find the process that can add the gluons (or EM energy if you wish) to the three quarks in order to accomplish the mission of creating protons without antiprotons while it consistent with conservation laws

[puppypower (OP)]

The electron, in particle accelerator data, was found to be a single particle composed of negative charge and mass. The mass and negative charge are so merged as to be consider one thing. This, logically, reflects a state of gravity and negative charge that is unified even at accelerator conditions. The electron obeys unified laws of gravity and negative charge. The proton is made of more than one particle and positive charge is not quite as unified to mass. It can associate as one thing; proton under extreme conditions, but not all conditions.

If you look at the EM force, the negatively changed single particle electron is better designed to take advantage of the magnetic side of the EM force, due to its never ending hustle. A charge in motion creates a magnetic field, while an electron is always in motion, allowing negative charge to overcome even negative charge repulsion, without any additional force. The proton's positive charge repulsion needs the nuclear force, since it magnetism is not enough. Negative charge is more self contained as the electron.

For example, the oxygen atom can form oxide or O-2. The oxygen atom can hold two extra negative charges, beyond its number of nucleus positive charges. The electrons and negative charges overcome this change imbalance and negative charge electrostatic repulsion by being always in motion. The motion of the electron in the p-orbitals of oxygen, generates an extra magnetic component, that can overcome the charge repulsion. Mineral oxides can withstand extreme heat and O-2 remains very stable.

Originally, electricity was assumed to be due to the movement of positive charge. When the electron was discovered, this was corrected and electricity was defined as movement of negative charge. These two traditions created a relative reference compromise, since positive charge to the left creates the same affects as negative charge to the right.

The electrons in motion, around the oxygen nucleus, simulates positive charge and negative charge so they appear to charge cancel; opposite motions. This is due to the unity of the EM force. Protons and positive charge do not do this in chemistry, since positive and negative charges are not the same. The extra perpetual motion of the single particle electron, makes this possible, since its motion implies a better integration of magnetism, negative charge and mass. This is super stable even if the most extreme accelerator conditions,

The finish up question is, why is the electron always in motion? My guess is this is connected to its unity of magnetism, negative charge, mass. This unity implies the need for motion. This motion is also very fast and makes another connection; special relativity. Special relativity can increase the relativistic mass and tweak the unified force it displays in space-time. The proton is more GR based. One result is the uncertainty displayed by electrons, due to it being in another state; unified, mass, charge and magnetic state within a perpetual low level SR reference.



 

[Bored chemist]

Well, I also read that article:

It's a pity that you don't seem to have understood it.

1. How they have overcome the proton/antiproton annihilation process.

There's nothing to overcome.

3. How they have forced the antiproton to move directly to that "assumed" detector?

You have deluded yourself into thinking that they did this.
But actually, they id not, so teh question of "how" does not arise.

Like I said, you may have read it, but you didn't understand it.
You should learn some physics.

So, theoretically, if a proton/antiproton had been created why they could potentially start a chain reaction of nuclear fission?

They couldn't.
And they said that they didn't.

It's just that, once again, you did not understand it.

They said
" The target nuclei are excited and upon deexcitation, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled per nucleus. Although this is a far more expensive way of producing neutron beams than by a chain reaction of nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor, "

Since they say that the spallation method is more expensive than a fission chain in a reactor, it is clear that the spallation method is different from that fission chain.
And, anyway, to get chain reaction, you need something fissionable like uranium.

Do we have an idea what might be the outcome of a collision between antimatter to real matter?

Yes.
We have a lot of detailed experimental information about it.
If you took the time to learn science, rather than posting nonsense, you would know that.

If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?

Of course I don't agree.
That's just silly.
You seem to think that antimatter is magic.
It isn't.
Even high school science (like the conservation of energy) would show that, because they only put in as much energy as they paid for in their electricity bill, they could not get more energy out to destroy a city.

You would know that if you had any understanding of science.

How they could take so high risk in that experiment?

There was no risk.

Sorry - that article is just nonsense.

No, as usual, your misunderstandings of science is nonsense.

I'm quite sure that no one from our "real science community" tried to do it again.

You are sure of many things, but you are seldom correct.

However, our science community are using that kind of nonsense just to prove that Proton/antiproton can be created from Photon.

You have not even begun to show that it is nonsense.
All you have done is show that your understanding of antimatter seems to come from watching mad sci fi.

The idea that we can produce Proton+Abtiproton in a lab doesn't mean that the Universe would use exactly the same scenario.

True, but stupid, because nobody said it had to.

However, because we can make antimatter from high energy photons, there is nothing to stop the universe doing it.

If it would, then we had to see equal no. of protons and antiprotons.

Only if the antiprotons were near enough for us to see them.
If they are not within the visible universe then - obviously, we will not see them.

If we don't see it, then it is a solid prove that the universe works differently from that lab.

No more so than the idea that a single mother is proof of virgin birth.
We know there was a father, he's just not there any more.

If it does, then why our scientists claim that it took the early universe 300MY to get the first hydrogen atom?

Because scientists understand science.
In particular, they know the difference between an atom, and a nucleus.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have asked that.
Why don't you learn science?

How can you call this poor experiment as "Observation"?

Since you did not understand teh expoeriment, you can not be taken seriously when you describe it as poor.

On the other hand, the report went through peer review which shows that it was not poor.

The problem is not with the experiment, but with you.
If you knew some science, you would have known that.
Why don't you learn science?

This is incorrect (

In reality, it is correct.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have said that.
Why don't you learn science?

The real observation tells us that there is no antimatter/antiproton in our Universe.

Well, that's what you say.
But everyone who knows about science disagrees with you.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have posted that.
Why don't you learn science?

So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.

Your uneducated opinion is not a fact, is it?

The Universe tells us that there is no Antimatter in it.
We can accept this observation or we can reject it.

Antimatter actually exists.
We do not have to "accept" something which is untrue, do we?

This brief story represents our current approach to real science.

No.
If it said "the seeds must be in watermelons in another country which we can not look at; so there is no point looking here", that would be a better representation.

And that's why the rest of your comments on the matter are nonsense.

We don't see antimatter while based on our theory it must be there. If still this moment we have no real answer why it is missing, then how could you claim that it doesn't mean that our theory is wrong?.

As I said, a child would work out the answer.
The antimatter must be somewhere else- somewhere too far away for us to see it.

Why can't you grasp this idea?

Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?

Because the theory is based on maths, and the maths can be (and has been) prove to be correct. So the theory must be correct.
So the antimatter must be somewhere.
Since the idea that "it's somewhere else" isn't actually a problem, that's one reasonable basis to move forward. (there are other possible explanations).

So, if the Universe tells us that it doesn't accept the BBT, why don't we look for better theory?

The universe didn't tell us that.
It's just that, no matter what the universe tells us, you don't listen or you don't understand because you lack the grounding in science.
Why don't you learn science?

Why this key contradiction in our observation is not good enough to eliminate the BBT?

Because the idea that it is a contradiction is a figment of your uninformed imagination.

This is your theory

It's Noether's theory; and has been proven right.
So everything you said about it is nonsense.

Why not save yourself the trouble and embarrassment of writing nonsense by learning some science?

Prove it please by real science.

The evidence is literally everywhere.
It's a pity you can't understand it.
Why don't you learn the science?

Is it real?

Yes; otherwise I'd not have said it.

At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.

The universe is still expanding, this does not stop cars hitting each other.
Nor would the expanding universe "prevent the collision"; that's just tosh you made up.

Well, it seems that we always prefer the "chance" that supports the BBT.

No.
We prefer what the evidence shows.
And since that shows that we are here, we prefer the version that leads to something, rathe than nothing.

Now when it comes to the idea that the Antimatter shouldn't collide with the existing matter in our current universe then the chance for that is very low - in order to support other request of the BBT.

That's just not true, is it? We know that the chance of an matter antimatter collision is very high.
It doesn't cause a problem wit the BBT.
It's just that you refuse to learn about the BBT, so you don't understand this.

Please chose the chance as you wish – but please don't change it according to your request..

Nobody did.
You made that bit up.

So, please let's try to find a process that consistent with conservation laws which could work and explain how particles could be created without antiparticle.

Do you realise what you said there?
You said that we know that adding 1 to minus 1 gives zero, but we must fins a way that is consistent with that where adding 1 to minus 1 does not give zero.

Do you not see how that is impossible?

Perhaps you should learn some science.

Therefore, each quark could be created by that pair particle process.

No.

However, as there is no antiparticle in our Universe, it tells us that the pair process isn't applicable for the proton creation process.

No, it doesn't.

[Kryptid]

If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?

You might want to rethink that while taking conservation of energy into consideration.

[Dave Lev]

If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?

You might want to rethink that while taking conservation of energy into consideration.

Well, I hope that you agree that if we set proton at absolutely close to antiproton (or collide with each other), they both should be annihilated and therefore there must be lost of mass/energy.
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?

However, with regards to that Annihilation process.
Based on that article it is very clear that Mr. Hiroshi Hamasaki didn't do any activity to prevent from the new created proton/antiproton (that had been created due to the Gamma collision) to be  Annihilated at the same moment of their creation.
So, even if the idea of creating proton/antiproton by gamma collision is correct, how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?

[Dave Lev]

Dear puppypower
Thanks for your interesting explanation.

The electron, in particle accelerator data, was found to be a single particle composed of negative charge and mass.

The finish up question is, why is the electron always in motion? My guess is this is connected to its unity of magnetism, negative charge, mass.

Please let me know if you agree with the following:
We can find Electrons in photons or in Atoms:
When Electron paired with Positron they set a photon which always move at the speed of light.
When Electron is paired with Proton is sets Hydrogen Atom. However, as the mass of the Proton is significantly higher than the mass of the electron, then the electron must orbit around the Proton at the speed of light.

Therefore - do you agree that electron is "born to run" always in the speed of light.

With regards to positron
In any photon there is Electron + Positron.
In any atom there is Electron + Proton.
Hence, there must be less positrons than electrons in our Universe.

Therefore, when our scientists claim that there is more matter that antimatter, they actually don't tell us the whole story.
They must tell us that there are more protons than antiprotons and there are more Electrons than Positrons.
So, let's see if I understand correctly the matter creation:
1. Big Bang - Unlimited Energy, free of charge + New space
2. The energy is transformed into photons and gamma photons.
3. The Gamma photons collide with each other. New proton/antiproton and Electron/positron are created due to those collisions. However, do we know what is the chance for the proton/antiproton pair v.s electron/positron pair? If they are not equally, than less atoms would be created.?
4 When the proton combined with the electron they are converted to Hydrogen Atom. However, what kind of force is needed to combine them together?
5. Therefore the left over are antiprotons and positrons.

So, the problem is not just that there are missing antiprotons, but also where are all the other missing positrons?

[Dave Lev]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.

The universe is still expanding, this does not stop cars hitting each other.

Is it real
if two cars are moving directly to each other at 100 Km/h while we expand the space between them at 1000K/h, how they could collide with each other?
Therefore, if the space is expanding much faster than the speed of light, how any two gamma photons could with each other?
Your answer shows that you really don't care about real science.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54
Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?

Because the theory is based on maths, and the maths can be (and has been) prove to be correct. So the theory must be correct.
So the antimatter must be somewhere.
Since the idea that "it's somewhere else" isn't actually a problem, that's one reasonable basis to move forward. (there are other possible explanations).

Well, if our scientists assume that the antimatter had drifted to other part of the Universe, then they have to explain the source of this separation.
You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.
There is even one more key issue.
We can observe galaxies at a distance of 13.3 Bly.
Up to that radius we do not observe any sort of Antimatter.
So, don't you agree that if the antimatter was real, we had to observe it at least over there?
Krypid had mentioned that in order to justify the idea of antimatter our Universe might be infinite.
I wonder how could it be that a universe in a size of proton could be converted to Infinite in only 13.8 By.
You claim that the Math supports your understanding.
So, based on your math, what is the maximal size that our Universe could be after 13.8BY?

[Bored chemist]

Well, I hope that you agree that if we set proton at absolutely close to antiproton (or collide with each other), they both should be annihilated and therefore there must be lost of mass/energy.

Well, there's a loss of mass and a production of energy.
Mass/ energy remains conserved.

Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?

Yes, but not much
About 0.000000000298484 Joules.

And you thought this was going to destroy a city.


Why don't you just admit that you really have no clue?

So, even if the idea of creating proton/antiproton by gamma collision is correct,

Why are you saying "if", when we know that it's true?

how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?

Luck.

[Bored chemist]

It two cars are moving directly to each other at 100 Km/h while we expand the space between them at 1000K/h, how they collide with each other?

But cars don't do that, do they?

So your "argument" is just silly.

It's like saying that a north bound car moving away from a south bound car will not hit it, so collisions are all impossible.

You will need to do better than that.

[Bored chemist]

hen they have to explain the source of this separation.

Chance.
Luck.
Coincidence.

We don't need to explain anything. that's just tosh you made up.

You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.

It's not a "claim"; it is an observation.
We do have the maths.
Here's a copy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem


However, it's the maths that does what I said it did.
It isn't the maths that, for example, lets you calculate how much tax you pay.
That's different.

So it's just as stupid to say  this

You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.

As it would be to try to use relativity to balance your cheque book.

Why did you pretend that I had said that we had maths that explained the distribution of antimatter in the universe.
Where did you think I say that?

I didn't say it, did I- you are just not understanding, or not telling the truth.
Which is it?
Are you a fool, or a liar?

[Kryptid]

Why are we turning this into yet another thread where Dave attacks the Big Bang theory via misunderstandings? Let's keep the posts about the original topic, please.

[Dave Lev]

Why are we turning this into yet another thread where Dave attacks the Big Bang theory via misunderstandings? Let's keep the posts about the original topic, please.

If I understand it correctly, this tread is all about positive and negative particle charged or matter and antimatter.
So, with or without the BBT, we should verify the real meaning of the missing antimatter (as antiproton and positron) in our Universe.
Therefore in this tread I focus on the real meaning of the missing Antimatter in our Universe.

If you wish, we can continue the discussion in the other thread.
However, if you agree that as long as we focus on the matter/antimatter it's better to stay in this thread then let me say that the antimatter is not ended by a single word

Our scientists offer a theory that for any kind of creating matter its equivalent antimatter must be created in a pair process.
Therefore, if this theory is correct, then the total number of any kind of matter must be absolutely identical to its equivalent antimatter.
Hence, the total no. of the protons in the universe should be identical to the total number of Antiprotons.
In the same token, the total number of electrons should be identical to the total number of the positrons.
So, we need to explain why there are more protons than antiprotons and also why there are more electrons than positrons.
Hence, the missing antimatter is more complex than just one element of antimatter.
This is the MOST important issue in our Universe.
Any theory must explain the missing antiprotons and missing positrons.
If we see so critical contradiction in our theory then it proves that we have severe misunderstanding in the Universe theory.
However, instead of comforting this key contradiction in our theory, our scientists bypass it by a simple statement of: "We don't know" or "Maybe" that... the Antimatter had been separated and drifted to different Universe.
Sorry - this is unrealistic.
There is no room for "we don't know or "Maybe".
If our scientists don't know - then please they can't tell us that they know.
If it is "maybe" then maybe they just don't know the real theory for our Universe?
I claim that the chance to create Proton/antiproton by collision between two gamma photons is equal to the chance of creating gold Bars by collision between two plastic bars.
There are no quarks and no gluons in a photon/gamma photon.
Therefore, there is no way to get proton and antiproton from that collision.
This is a pure fiction.
Photon is all about Electron + positron.
Therefore, a collision between two gamma photons could only create electron + positron.
The energy that you set in the photon won't help to convert those basic electron/positron to Proton/antiproton.
Never - Ever.

With regards to the article that you had offered to prove the idea of proton/antiproton pair process due to gamma collision:
"Proton Antiproton Pair Production in Two Photon Collisions"
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf

I know that whatever I would say about this useless article, BC would reject it.
He even reject the idea of the Annihilation:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54
how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?

Luck.

Chance.
Luck.
Coincidence.

Sorry - there is no way of "chance" or "luck to bypass the annihilation process without external force
This is the meaning of real science.
Therefore, the real "chance" or "Luck" to bypass the annihilation process at that experiment is less than one to one trillion.
Even if we accept this chance, then at least one trillion gamma photons must collides with each other in order to set one free pair of proton/antiproton.

In the meantime, the accumulated heat energy of that process should be:
10^12 * 0.000000000298484 Joules.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?

Yes, but not much
About 0.000000000298484 Joules.
And you thought this was going to destroy a city.

So, 298,484 Joules of heat energy might be created before we can get even one real proton/antiproton by "luck" and that even before we consider the luck for that pair to hit the W detector.

Please also be aware that in this experiment there is no special detector for antiproton.
So, even if a proton had been created by some unexpected process, how they could detect its antiproton pair without a special detector for antiproton?
Somehow I have got the impression that this experiment is all about energy detector.
So, as the gamma photon is already at the energy level of proton, then theoretically if the detectors can detect the gamma photon level it could indicate the requested energy for a proton.

This article doesn't prove the creation of antiproton.
Therefore, it is just nonsense.

The missing antiproton and the missing positrons in our Universe tell us the story of our universe.
As the proton includes quarks & gluons it can't be considered as a single particle.
It is closer to atom than closer to a single particle.
Therefore, the same process that could create an atom must create the proton.
Actually, there are no free protons/antiprotons and no free electron/positrons
Therefore, as Atom can't be created by the single particle pair process, also the proton can't be created by that process.
Hence, the same natural process that had been created the Hydrogen atoms had also created its integrated proton plus its extra electron.

Hence, the atom had been created in a single process with its proton and electrons in order to balance its internal electrical charge.

This can clearly explain the missing antiproton and positrons in our Universe.

Please how can our scientists tell us that they know what is correct or incorrect with regards to the antimatter, while they clearly don't know the real answer for the missing antimatter.

[puppypower (OP)]

We know that the electron is a stable single particle state composed of mass and negative charge. It follows, that by the nature of being one irreducible thing, this implies the electron is in a unified state between negative charge and gravity. One irreducible thing, cannot be two things, even if convention says so. The convention was made before these experiments proved the electron to be one irreducible thing.

Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass?  This is why we need to look at extreme gravity induced phases, that current particle accelerators cannot yet simulate.

Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles? This would be a state where positive charge and mass are so integrated, to where the line between gravity and positive charge also becomes blurred. This data will tell us if the positron is a single particle or two particles.

I found this quote in Wikipedia. The subject was the positron. I was looking for anything that said the positron was a single particle, or not, under all conditions. Instead I found something that was more interesting to me.

In research published in 2011 by the American Astronomical Society positrons were discovered originating above thunderstorm clouds; positrons are produced in gamma-ray flashes created by electrons accelerated by strong electric fields in the clouds.[25]

Water is once again showing some of its many tricks. The point was, electron currents, driven by the positive charge of the hydrogen protons of water in motion, were making positrons at ambient conditions via gamma rays. This tells me the positrons can come from common matter and even be induced by electrons. Why make your own antagonist?

Thunder clouds generate energy via the phrase changing of water. Water in the atmosphere, was previously liquid water that gained solar energy. This vaporizes the water, which then takes up vapor space. The water vapor applies a partial pressure; high pressure system. When the water vapor condenses into rain, the partial pressure within the local the vapor space, falls; low pressure system.

This low pressure pulls a local vacuum drawing in more higher pressure moist air. As we increase elevation above the thunder cloud, the rising air speeds up the rate of condensation and increase the pressure drop above the thunder cloud; hot air is aggressively pulled upwards.

There is a lowering of entropy, as water vapor becomes liquid water. This lowering of entropy goes against the second law, so there will be a need countering high entropy affects, as an offset for the second law. This will cause increases in complexity, such as cloud rotations, lightning, tornados, and sometimes positron formation in the countering electric fields created by the oxygen of water.  The precursors of life took advantage of water's swiss army knife nature and the various countering entropic potentials.

This data also shows that positrons did not need the extreme conditions of the early universe to form from scratch. This is due to the lingering stability of the electron. All you need is lot of water in motion; positive charge, that is resisting gravity; rising clouds.

[Dave Lev]

Dear puppypower

Thanks for your intelligent explanation.
With regards to your following question:

Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass?  This is why we need to look at extreme gravity induced phases, that current particle accelerators cannot yet simulate.

You claim that the current particle accelerators (I assume you mean the CERN accelerator) can't simulate extreme gravity force.
However, there is real natural accelerator that somehow our scientists have neglected.
This accelerator is called the accretion disc. We clearly see it around our SMBH.
I hope that you agree that the gravity force over there is extremely high.
Please be aware that the plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
All they see is flares from time to time, while they fully confirm that those flares are due to the Ultra electromagnetic over there.
Therefore, I it is very clear to me that all the matter in the accretion disc had been created by the SMBH EM + Gravity force.
Please be aware that the accretion disc is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
I claim that that our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.

This particle generator creates only matter (No antimatter)
Therefore, if we could understand how that particle generator really works, we could understand why there is only matter in our real universe.

[Kryptid]

Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass?

No, as that would violate both conservation of mass and conservation of charge.

However, there is real natural accelerator that somehow our scientists have neglected.
This accelerator is called the accretion disc. We clearly see it around our SMBH.
I hope that you agree that the gravity force over there is extremely high.
Please be aware that the plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
All they see is flares from time to time, while they fully confirm that those flares are due to the Ultra electromagnetic over there.
Therefore, I it is very clear to me that all the matter in the accretion disc had been created by the SMBH EM + Gravity force.
Please be aware that the accretion disc is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
I claim that that our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.

This particle generator creates only matter (No antimatter)
Therefore, if we could understand how that particle generator really works, we could understand why there is only matter in our real universe.

Please don't hijack this thread with your own ideas. Please keep that in the original thread you made about this.

[Dave Lev]

Please don't hijack this thread with your own ideas. Please keep that in the original thread you made about this.

Agree

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg635286#msg635286

[Bored chemist]

In the meantime, the accumulated heat energy of that process should be:
10^12 * 0.000000000298484 Joules.

That makes no  sense.
You just made up this number.
That's  not science.

[evan_au]

Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles?

Yes, as far as we can tell, positrons behave identically to electrons
- apart from them being anti-particles of electrons with opposite quantum numbers

There are two particles that are just like "heavy electrons": the muon particle (207 times heavier than an electron) and tau particle (3,475 times as massive).
- The Muon and Tau do decay into lighter particles
- However, we know of no particles lighter than the electron and positron that they could decay into (and still retain the quantum numbers balanced).
- So both the electron and positron are thought to be stable, while muon and tau (plus anti-muon and anti-tau) are not stable

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle)

It is possible to store electrons and positrons indefinitely using magnetic fields
- In fact, today's LHC at CERN was built in  the tunnel that was originally housed LEP: It stored electrons and positrons in a ring, so their interactions could be studied
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider