Dear Arancha, In my opinion your question has any meaning at all; only if you accept the quantum dynamical and the dialectical view that matter (and antimatter) "comes into being and passes out of existence" eternally and as discrete quantum particles of the quantum vacuum in the microcosm.

Simple conversion of matter to energy as in matter-antimatter annihillation reaction giving gamma ray or its opposite, the pair (electron-positron) production from the gamma ray photon only involves existing matter/energy; but no "new creation" as is suggested in your question.

If you accept the second alternative (no new creation), then you have to accept the notion of a previous creation (as in the Big Bang) of both matter and energy in their totality. What you are proposing then is the mere conversion of (existing) matter/antimatter to energy and vice versa. In other words you are accepting the conservation laws of thermodynamics and the philosophical/theological proposition" "Ex nohilo nihil fit"

But both the quantum phenomena (quantum electrodynamics or QED) and dialectics deny the validity of the conservation laws of thermodynamics and classical physics/philosophy/theology. The anti-quantum and anti-dialectical world view is based on causality; which invariably leads to the mystery of a "first cause" - i.e., the "effect" of a "cause" that is unknown or is unknowable as in God of theology or "Big Bang" creation in physics - both are mysteries! I must remind you that Einstein never accepted the quantum uncertainty and his theories of relativity were desperate attempts to avoid the quantum conundrum and the breakdown of causality!

But now many including me, have shown that Einstein's theories of relativity and cosmology (built on those theories) have no scientific and/or philosophical basis! These including are all modern "continuous field" based theories of modern physics are but, mathematics driven fantasies! Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Baryonic matter may possibly be created in stars' coronas:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue11/A07110109.pdf

"Is baryonic matter being created among the Universe?"

Dear Arancha, Yes and ceratinly! This dialectical process of "coming in to being and passing out of existence" as Heraclitus thought and not one-shot "Big Bang" creation, is the basis for the manifestation of this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe! Please see the following and related publications: Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Ms. Ceada

Could you share the original paper about"As Hawking's radiation has been observed"with me?Well,I heard the first picture of a black hole will be released on April 10 in 2019，but these are two things! the baryon structure is described by strong nuclear force,It has nothing to do with gravity directly!

If the universe continues to expand，the total mass increase,the number of baryon increase possible！

Ok, probably “to observe” is not the right verb. “To deduct” could be much better. Is there certainty of Hawking’ radiation?

I applaud your question and concepts as related to a cyclic universe. I would like to review your paragraph's concepts, and perhaps shed some light on possible corrections there, before answering the main question.

A black hole's Hawking radiation has yet to observed, and even a picture will not show it. Why? It is a very small, tiny, the size of quark event. Not even the best type of microscope will directly show it. An analogue of Hawking radiation experiment was published a few months back, that is thought to aid in future exploring some of the possible behaviors of Hawking radiation.

Baryonic matter is composed of quarks and gluons. I would think one must first make quarks, and those must combine to make protons and neutrons. Making an electron is likely to happen first, due to the much reduced energy requirement. The quantum foam of vacuum has virtual particle popping up, and the Casmir Force experiments are said to prove the existence of virtual particles, thus prove QM.

That Hawking radiation appears at the surface of a black hole, where one particle falls in, and the other does not, does that escaping particle every leave the vicinity of the event horizon? Time is greatly slowed down, and in falling particles will likely collide with the escaping particle, and both will fall past the event horizon? So, not much 'created' baryonic matter will likely be seen 'far' from the event horizon, in the lifetime of the universe, is my opinion.

Thus, I conclude Hawking radiation is a wild goose chase as related to your main question. Quantum foam and virtual particles are where the main answer lies, in my opinion.

On to another issue, that of the border of the universe. And how one defines it. No one is going to travel there, to make measurements. Why? It takes too long to get there at or below the speed of the light. The assumption I see in the concept of low density at the border of the universe is that the 'age' of the border is just as old as were we are now. Thus, the density is identical to here, within a billion light years around us. On the other hand, if you are referring to the border of the universe as the edge of creation of space and time, the age of the universe being close to a few years, or under a million years of age, well, I have this to say. That state of birth existed over 13 billion years ago, our time. And is long gone. Right? If you are referring to the Big Bang birth border of the universe, where all the energy was in the "center" as space expanded, pulling energy->matter with it, at the border, then the density of matter/energy at the border would be identical, uniform, over all the birth years of the earliest universe.

Point is, the zero point energy of vacuum of spacetime, the quantum foam, implies virtual particles are created every where, even at the border of the universe, no matter the age of the universe. Even inside your own body, virtual particles can be created.

Regarding baryonic matter being disintegrated, any where, the answer is yes, all the time, where ever there are isotopes, radioactive atoms. Neutrons get destroyed, but not protons. Both will change, into the other, given types of particles colliding with them, or being emitted. Regarding the components of the baryonic matter, quarks being destroyed, hmm, good question. So far, I have only heard of quarks begetting virtual quarks, in pairs of matter and anti-matter. One proposed mechanism is the dark energy that expands space will rip apart a nucleus, and then rip apart the quarks... which I would call disintegration, into radiative forms of particles, of lessor energy, of course.

The issue of ratio ... interesting idea to calculate a ratio. I've not seen any Cosmologist propose doing that. It might be doable from group theory and symmetry considerations.

Now, my answer to the main question, is baryonic matter being created? Virtual pair production theory would have you believe so, between two ultra smooth metal plates, to push them apart, or in the hardest of vacuum of outer space. I'd rather start by considering particles of less energy than quarks, like electrons or neutrinos, as QM theory predicts where there is available energy, the 'event' will happen. Not might. Will happen. As allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.

Why electrons? They are a standard elemental particle, not able to be split into smaller particles, according to the Standard Model of Particle Physics theory. Where as baryonic matter, protons, neutrons, the like, are made of quarks. And making a quark, means making it's anti-particle, a virtual pair. Both will immediately attract one or more quarks to it, binding with the strong force, gluons, to make two baryonic particles. A lot of energy out of nothing. An amusing thought. Illogical. But that is QFT for you.

Regarding the ratio of creation, the idea that the number of quarks in the universe is constant, therefore the count of baryons is constant, is expressed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon#Baryogenesis

Thus, the mainstream appears to believe the ratio is zero. And black hole Hawking radiation is not seen away from an event horizon, if it exists, giving black holes hair, fiery hair at that.

Arancha Ceada

Dear Arancha, Hawking’s radiation is only possible if Black Holes exist. These are speculated but have not been substantiated. On the other hand if the theory of general relativity (GR) itself has no validity, then the question of Black Holes or Hawking’s radiation does not arise! Please see the very recent comments in the following lon two RG forums: Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

As I asserted in the article on “The Breeding Galaxies” in the reference above, it is certainly possible that fundamental matter/antimatter particles be generated from the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum through quantum tunnelling or yet other unknown processes throughout the whole universe. Chance accumulated centres of matter/antimatter specially at the core of the galaxies where enough energy exists to provide the mass equivalent for the virtual particles to become real, provide favourable centres for the enhanced production of new matter/antimatter, leading to nebulae, stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters etc.

Most of all, from a materialist dialectical point of view, the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing. A limited or cyclic universe as proposed by the causality based official physics, specially a finite Big Bang originated universe can definitely be discounted from philosophical grounds alone. Since you seem to be a student of philosophy, you may enjoy reading (among others) at least the following two articles and possibly the book listed below.

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Book: https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Dear Peter,

You wrote: "I would think one must first make quarks, and those must combine to make protons and neutrons. Making an electron is likely to happen first, due to the much reduced energy requirement."

I agree.

Here is how the making of electrons and positrons can be mechanically explained from electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more in the trispatial geometry:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

And here is the mechanics of creation of protons and neutrons from combinations of electrons and positrons in the trispatial geometry:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

You wrote: "A lot of energy out of nothing. An amusing thought. Illogical."

Not "out of nothing" nor "illogical" in reality. Simply "adiabatically induced" as a function of the inverse of the distance separating all charged particles:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear Peter Benjamin@:

If I didn't misunderstand you, you mean:

1.- Observable matter disappears quite "frequently". Atomic fission could be a good example.Part of the matter turns into radioactivity.

2.- Observable matter could emerge only in the event a particle and its antiparticle are forced apart which seems not very likely to occur (except if at the black holes events horizon there is a chance that one of them is more attracted by dark energy than by the black hole gravity and it absorbs energy and turn into matter.

Therefore, could we assume Universe observable matter tends to “evaporate”?

Thank you so much for your clarity!

Dear Arancha, In my opinion your question has any meaning at all; only if you accept the quantum dynamical and the dialectical view that matter (and antimatter) "comes into being and passes out of existence" eternally and as discrete quantum particles of the quantum vacuum in the microcosm.

Simple conversion of matter to energy as in matter-antimatter annihillation reaction giving gamma ray or its opposite, the pair (electron-positron) production from the gamma ray photon only involves existing matter/energy; but no "new creation" as is suggested in your question.

If you accept the second alternative (no new creation), then you have to accept the notion of a previous creation (as in the Big Bang) of both matter and energy in their totality. What you are proposing then is the mere conversion of (existing) matter/antimatter to energy and vice versa. In other words you are accepting the conservation laws of thermodynamics and the philosophical/theological proposition" "Ex nohilo nihil fit"

But both the quantum phenomena (quantum electrodynamics or QED) and dialectics deny the validity of the conservation laws of thermodynamics and classical physics/philosophy/theology. The anti-quantum and anti-dialectical world view is based on causality; which invariably leads to the mystery of a "first cause" - i.e., the "effect" of a "cause" that is unknown or is unknowable as in God of theology or "Big Bang" creation in physics - both are mysteries! I must remind you that Einstein never accepted the quantum uncertainty and his theories of relativity were desperate attempts to avoid the quantum conundrum and the breakdown of causality!

But now many including me, have shown that Einstein's theories of relativity and cosmology (built on those theories) have no scientific and/or philosophical basis! These including are all modern "continuous field" based theories of modern physics are but, mathematics driven fantasies! Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Dear Abdul Malek. Many thanks for your interest. Good point this philosophical reference: Ex nihilo nihil fit. In fact this is all about, don't you think so? I resist myself to believe that existence comes from nothing. It is the same as admitting a beginning and this gets in conflict with a cyclic universe model.

I am not trying to find the solution to this mysteries (how may I?). I just make questions in order to open imagination.

Does matter depend only on a Big Bang to be created or it also comes to reality somewhere else in the Universe? Is it possible that two un-mixable realities coexist? It is very suggestive the idea of a quantic particle forced not to join its dear antiparticle, turning avid to catch energy from the surroundings to turn into matter as a solution for its desperation.

Does matter necessarily mean mass? It is as well suggestive to imagine matter being disintegrated and resturning the borrowed energy to the Universe. Doesn't it make sense? Probably there are only some places where both transformations may occur, and those are black holes.

From some of the cyclic models that I have been going through, I found specially interesting some Paul Frampton's Theories. He lately believes universe is a dark hole itself. Even he says black holes are full of dark matter. DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/10/016.

Kind regards,

Arancha

Hawking radiation hasn't been observed; but, even had it been observed, it wouldn't have had anything to do with the creation of baryonic matter in the Universe.

Matter-whether baryonic or not-is created in an expanding Universe (as was noted by Schrödinger in 1939). For a recent review: Article Particle creation and particle number in an expanding universe

There's no such notion as ``the edge of the Universe'', however.

Arancha Ceada

Dear Arancha, I like your approach – looking at physics from the point of view of philosophy; so that you can see the ugly side (the contradictions) and ask the right question (I saw your two other question just now!); which physics wants to hide behind “consistent” mathematics and tries to push away at the periphery of knowledge or the remote realm of the universe! The physicists always disparage philosophy, because they do not want to see their ugly side reflected from genuine philosophy.

Like you, I also came to philosophy after a scientific career - it is such a liberating experience! I am trying to extend Hegel’s dialectics to modern physics and biology, particularly in relation to the quantum phenomena; following the lead of Frederick Engels’ materialist dialectical approach to natural and biological sciences. What I find is the exact opposite picture of what official physics or biology is presenting to humanity and find the similar contradictions that you are pointing out. Any existence at all is a dialectical contradiction the primary one is "Being-Nothing" . In frenetic efforts to avoid contradictions in Nature, physics got totally entangled in contradictions - now so evident in the realm of quantum and astrophysics that everybody can see!

The problem with the human world and particularly the present crisis, lies with its epistemology - the world view of causality or what Hegel called “the view of understanding” in opposition to his “view of reason” or dialectics. The problems with physics is that the old pot it had, cannot accommodate new revolutionary developments in physics itself – it is overflowing. Einstein et al., panicked and took a flight to his “Castle in the Air” from where he and his followers are pouring only acid rain that is not only causing extensive damage to the existing crop of positive knowledge, but hampering new growth of anything down on poor earth. Monopoly capitalism and theology, who built and maintain the “Castle”, are taking full advantage of this acid rain, to sow and harvest the overgrowth of wild weeds. This is the sad story of everything we now call natural science.

The only way out of this mess is materialist dialectics – an epistemology that grew from the brilliant germ of the intuition of Heraclitus, expressed in the following immortal word, “Everything changes due to inner conflict”. Epicurus gave dialectics its concrete (materialist) initial form. Hegel developed dialectics in an all round way, but in the idealized form “standing on its head”, which Marx and Engels inverted to stand on its feel again Materialist dialectics and not causality is the proper tool for any investigation of the World, Nature, Life, Society and Thought. I am making some humble efforts to extend dialectics in the light of new developments in quantum physics and astrophysics – the realms that were unavailable to Marx and Engels’ time. Please see some of my publications available through my RG profiles. For copy-right requirements, the books are unfortunately available only through local Amazon outlets.

Causality is the most fundamental epistemology for life as well as the most primitive one. A crude sense of short-term cause and effect is common in all life forms, including the most primitive ones. This quality roughly separates life from non-living matter. Simple movement & mechanics even in primitive life forms is impossible without a general sense of causality. With the progress of evolution, this sense of causality is accentuated culminating in its highest development in man. The “view of understanding” represent the “good old common sense” acquired through everyday life experience and passed on and attenuated through generations that eventually attains a generalized “instinctive” form of judgment common to most members of a society or an epoch. The dialectical mode of thought on the contrary, could only arise with the higher capability for communication, abstraction, introspection, and reflection etc. that could manifest itself in the highest developed form of matter - the thinking human brain.

@stam nicolis. Please read the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Hawking radiation has much to be with matter creation.

Dear Abdul Malek . Thank you so much for sharing your thinking. Nice to find some scientific that keeps in mind philosophical approach: science target is to bring answers to the big questions of Humanity. The rest is gamble and game, which are fine, but many times bring to a sad "cul de sac".

Kind regards,

Yes. The STOE model suggests the stuff of the universe is created at the center of spiral galaxies (as does the QSSC model) and leaves the universe thru sinks located at the center of elliptical galaxies. This model calculates the observed temperature of the universe (it is the only model that calculates a theoretical value), explains many cosmological observation that the standard model fails to explain, and has predicted observations of the Pioneer Anomaly and light interference of the Hodge experiment (which rejects wave models) and corresponds to both GR and QM.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-replaces-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics

Videos showing parts of the STOE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw/videos

The steady state model of the 1960's suggest matter creation between galaxies. This model was rejected in the 1990s by the mapping of the microwave background. It was recast as the Quasi-Steady State (QSSC) model and again as a cyclic universe model.

Hawking radiation doesn't have anything to do with the creation of matter in an expanding Universe, that's all. They're totally distinct issues. Hawking radiation has to do with future horizons; matter creation in an expanding Universe has to do with past horizons. And it is possible to define a decoupling limit, when describing the creation of matter in an expanding Universe; it's not possible to do so for Hawking radiation. That's why it hasn't been possible to observe it.

Stam Nicolis you believe that because you are thinking in not reversible time arrow :-). At black holes events horizons time is 0, future and past converge. Their edges are the perfect places for matter creation (two quantic particles being forced not to join and one of them escaping from past with part of the black hole energy that turns into matter in contact with Higg's field.

Belief is irrelevant. The statements about black holes are meaningless (since event horizons don't ``converge''), nor do they have edges, nor does matter get created ``there''.

While it is possible to generate grammatically and syntactically correct sentences that don't mean anything, physics does require focusing on meaning. The technical terms have very precise meaning and this can be learned. So, instead of generating meaningless sentences, it would be better to study general relativity.

Breaking News: Black Holes and Nobel Awards Alert, Folks!”

Nobel Award time is approaching again and it is time again to “Seal another Deal” for GR: https://phys.org/news/2019-04-scientists-unveil-picture-black-hole.html

“On Wednesday, astronomers across the globe will hold "six major press conferences" simultaneously to announce the first results of the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which was designed precisely for that purpose.

"The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole," the team said on their website.

Astrophysicists not involved in the project, including McNamara, are eagerly—perhaps anxiously—waiting to see if the findings challenge Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has never been tested on this scale.”

As you are dedicated entirely to this, Stam Nicolis , I let you prove mathematically that black holes, although predicted by GR don't exist, that they have no events horizon, that those have no edges, that gravity doesn't tend to infinitum inside (or even reaches a point where it changes in something totally different when time has a static value of 0 and Universe's future and past converge) instead of refuting everything I say. If I am wrong, which is probably true, I would like the prove, not only rude attitude. Meanwhile my approach, which is not physically unfounded, is as invalid as everythig that is not proven either no matter whose intuition has imagined it.

Abdul Malek what god news!!!! Thanks a lot for sharing that in my project's questions.

Kind regards,

Arancha

Arancha Ceada

Dear Arancha, The key to the good news is the following words from the team's website: "The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole," the team said on their website."

And the key words are "The imaging algorithms developed to fill gaps of the missing data". Similar keys ("algorithms") were used in the "discovery" of the Higgs boson (The God Particle"), the gravitational waves, CMBR (The Face of God) etc.! Mission accomplished! Another addition to the multitude of "proofs", nay the final/ultimate "proof" of GR.

We can now live happily ever after and forget about physics. It is the end of Physics!

Best regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek there is life after GR. QM is the evidence!

Regards,

Arancha

Arancha Ceada

Dear Arancha, My comment above was meant as an irony. The copies of the two following comments I made in another forum will explain why:

1) Meanwhile a trump card woud be displayed today to end all debates. Power of mathematics does not count at all! Singularity means the end of mathematics also, along with physics. We have the absolute truth of GR - end of physics! Cheers!

2) The “experimental confirmation” of singularity means the end of all debates and the confirmation of the absolute truth of GR. It also means the end of physics. Physics has nothing more to know or do. Physics has eaten up the “Tree of Knowledge” along with itself! It is like the story of a mythical voracious dragon that ate up everything in sight. But it was so hungry that it started to eat its own tail and ended eating up itself and went out of existence!

The moral from this pathetic story of physics is that any causality based epistemology ends up in a singularity and eats the “Tree of Knowledge” and itself when it finds the “first cause” the final truth of its existences!

But dialectics never ends up in a tragic end like this, there must always be change. On the one hand it never reaches a singularity and on the other hand the two opposites acting together always saves each other and also the universe, because of logical/rational necessity!. The infinite universe must have the finite with it!

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Astronomers deliver first photo of black hole:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-astronomers-unveil-photo-black-hole.html

Dear Abdul Malek . My comment was irony too!!! I am fascinated lately with QM. It brings a world of dreaming possibilities. Sigunlarities are the clue of my CAI (Certainly Absurd Theory), so I am very thankfull for the proof.

Dear Arancha Ceada , If you are "fascinated lately with QM"; you might probably like my un-sophisticated (not mainstream) interpretation of wave/particle duality in QM and a completely out of the world of academic (dialectical) philosophical basis for the quantum phenomena at the two following links:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Abdul Malek

Many thanks for the articles that I will read with care.

Regarding the Location of the Telescope in Spain, although "Sierra Madre" sounds very poetic, there is not sucha a Sierra in Spain. Instead, there is a Sierra Nevada, where the mentioned Veleta peak is located!

LoL

Lecture notes by L. H. Ford, uses quantum field theory in curved space-time, and discusses particle creation in an expanding universe, particle creation by moving mirrors and particle creation by black holes. The last possibility is at the center of galaxies, where black holes are believed to exist, and perhaps valid even at the present epoch.

Ref:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9707062.pdf

Biswajoy Brahmachari thanks a lot. What you propose is exactly what I read about and also the origin of my question.