1

New Theories / Re: What is inside a black hole? or MC Squared theory.

« on: 06/02/2021 17:50:58 »

Entanglement is a proof that the Universe is finite. The discrepancies between observation and the calculated value of the vacuum energy is caused by the inclusion of extra imaginary particles. The unitarity of the wave function includes all particles of the Universe in an entanglement summation which is always equal to one for the particles considered with all its external relations. For example, two electrons may only be maximally entangled at 1/2 or if you prefer, 50%, meaning there is a leftover of 50% of entanglement with all other particles in the Universe which conserves unitarity, energy and momentum.

When a measure is done, the position of the detector influences the result because the measured particle becomes highly entangled with it. When the detector is at 90 degrees from the maximally 50% entangled dual relation you only measure some of the 50% leftover of the rest of the Universe! In the perfect cases, the detectors entanglement enhances the measurement by a factor of 2, from 25% when both detectors are perpendicular to each other up to 50% when they are aligned or anti-aligned (from 25%+25% up to 50%+50%). More on that later. Just remember that entanglement relations depend on the distance. As both particles approach the detectors, the detectors become entangled with the particles from the bottom up, keeping the maximally entangled dual relation of both particles intact until they reach the detectors, assuming sufficient starting distances for a valid approximation of the detectors at infinity from the particles to get an enhancement factor of two. Thus, if everything is aligned or anti-aligned the leftover becomes insignificant compared to the detectors relations with the system. The detectors have consumed most of the 50% bottom relations and the leftover is insignificant and you get what appears to be a 100% entanglement relation between both particles though it is just 50% in reality.

The increase in entropy is not fundamental. Every Planck time, new connections are formed as the Universe expands and more particles are created, that's all. It is still limited by the speed of light. The entropy is the number of degrees of freedom. This allows the increase in complexity and the evolution of life... The brain seems to be a natural extension.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does past, present, future exist at once? What is block universe?

« on: 29/10/2020 08:12:13 »

To answer questions 1 and 2, you need to understand two basic principles.

The first principle is the principle of relative simultaneity due to the limited maximum speed of energy transfer, the speed of light in the vacuum. From the point of view of Einstein, this is the limit of causality. Therefore, two simultaneous events are relative to your place in space and time. Think of two different observers looking at lightnings and one sees two of them at the same time while the other sees them happening one after the other. As it is define as the speed of causality, it implies that there is no definite simultaneity.

The second principle is the conservation of information which can be related to the conservation of energy, though they are not necessarily equal. This principle just says that the information of the structure of the universe cannot be destroyed. It means that if you have the mathematical solution to the entire universe and a complete set of variables and parameters, you can predict the future and reconstruct the past (supposing you have the right computer).

According to Einstein, and this is probably true, if you could see the entire Universe from your own perspective and take a picture of it and you learn from it all information content of every particles and pieces of it, you could know everything, past and future. But it is true for any observer, even though their passage of time is different. As there is no preferred spatial coordinate or time, you cannot distinguish what is real and what is not apart from your own perspective. When you consider that all massive particles are observers and they have all their own perspective which must be equally real, then you have the Block Universe. Remember that you must exclude the possibility of an absolute time reference, an absolute simultaneity and faster than light causality. General Relativity does not respect the principle of the conservation of information due to the singularity at the center of black holes in his equations. Einstein knew his theory was not complete and no black holes were observed at the time. Most physicists think information is conserved and there is a limit and therefore no real singularity. Personally, I think Einstein went too far by eliminating these possibilities and the necessary limits are the keys to find the correct answer. The now has a special meaning in cosmology, this is where the symmetry of the expansion is conserved and energy is always conserved locally in General Relativity.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Did Time Come Into Existence ?

« on: 27/07/2020 15:45:45 »

It is physics, not philosophy. You are stuck in GR. GR doesn't explain everything. I did not say there is a possible instantaneous process, I said there is a possible causal connection faster than light with no energy exchange. It is clearly a possibility in physics and it does not contradict GR. Show me a contradiction and I will show you how you are wrong.

How can you solve the singularity inside a black hole?

How can you explain entanglement?

How can you explain the speed of light is a constant?

What is the mechanism explaining the gravitational redshift? GR gives an explanation for a local observer but it doesn't say why a local observer is a local observer. The speed of light is a local constant but what is the speed of a photon in the absence of an observer or between two localities with different gravitational potentials?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Did Time Come Into Existence ?

« on: 27/07/2020 02:25:30 »

How can we explain that the causal order of all events is the same for all observers? The chain of causality is not broken anywhere. GR has no explanation for that. What is a locality? To say that there is no simultaneity considering the speed of light is one thing but to say there is no intrinsic synchronization in the physics is another, especially when you consider that it takes time for a beam of light to travel from a locality to another and that each type of particle has the same properties, even though they may be separated by billions of light years...

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Did Time Come Into Existence ?

« on: 25/07/2020 05:00:30 »

The Universe is supposed to have started at the lowest entropy level. What that means is the symmetry was maximal just before the big bang. As a good analogy, you may represent this lowest form of entropy of the Universe as a sphere. If it was a perfect sphere, why would it bang? You must conclude that the ball had a bump in it, a basic and fundamental bump in the universe which is the source of time. In the end, we owe our existence to fundamental asymmetries. If the universe was totally symmetrical, it would annihilate and nothing would be left.

The Universe has always existed, unless there is an external agent which has created the ball and the bump... I think the Universe is much simpler that what we imagine.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 20:10:35 »

Their impact proves they are real. If you understand my prior explanations, you have to conclude they are real. There is no reference frame where a photon will disappear completely due to relativity. This is a misunderstanding based on an incomplete set of postulates. In a sense, motion is relative but real... It was, it is or it will be relative to everything else.

Special relativity cannot answer the question because it is not consistent with reality, GR proved it.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 18:31:10 »

If there is no reference and all energy is photons and photons are not real, then the Universe is not real... 

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 17:54:17 »

Photons are emitted by massive particles. Massive particles can only have a speed lower than C relative to any other massive particle. Absolute zero is unreachable because you can't isolate a system entirely and the temperature is the relative motion. There is always a relative motion to something else. Moreover, there is no uniform motion when you consider all matter like the Earth-sun-moon-mars-galaxies and so on. Therefore, photons are real...

The uniform motion is relative to the ensemble, not relative to any singular element.

To answer the original question, photons are not independent particles, but they are connected differently. On one side, they have the freedom to move at the speed of light; but on the other side, they are slaves to the vacuum fields in front of them because their own fields move with them at the speed of light. Their fields have no influence in front of them because there is no extension. That is why photons travel in straight lines. Here, a straight line means the path of least resistance not a geometrical straight line..

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?

« on: 09/10/2019 18:10:20 »

The Universe means everything. If I'm correct, that's the usual meaning of Universe with a capital 'U'. The Big Bang is not the beginning, it is just a phase.

Gravitational waves were postulated to conserved energy. And there we have them...

If you start with an infinite Universe, you won't find any satisfying solution because infinity cannot be rationalized. Yet, we have a constant speed of light in the vacuum, we have other constants and discreet particles. Let's start with a finite Universe, then we may add things to it only when no other solution is reasonable. In a finite and quantized Universe, there is a maximum to entropy...

Let's test a Big Bounce hypothesis where the Big Bang is just a phase transition.

Just before the Big Bang, all matter is condensed in an object having the lowest possible entropy. This could be a Schwarzchild black hole but it includes all space and time (no external space). This implies a prior Big Crunch which has condensed all matter in the previous cycle. This means there was an excess of attraction vs repulsion.

When the Universe reaches the bottom (the lowest entropy), the attractive force (whatever produces this force) passes by a symmetrical point where it becomes null and then this produces an excess of the repulsive force for a brief moment, something like a Planck time. Gravity disappears when the energy budget is 50-50, repulsion-attraction. But in fact, it never gets to this budget because it is a symmetrical point where attraction just disappears. It implies that there are asymmetries left to account for the structure. These asymmetries may be fundamental or related to a multiverse.

A finite Universe implies intrinsic asymmetries. Only an infinite Universe may have a complete symmetry. If you want a cause to our existence, it is the fact that there are irreducible physical asymmetries. The annihilation of an electron-positron pair doesn't result in nothing but two photons. This means there is no complete symmetry between them, though there are symmetries to be filled with the rest of the Universe.

Returning to the Big Bang, this results in a delay between repulsion and attraction.  The phase of repulsion is in advance of the attractive phase. This is dark energy.  Now the Universe has a much greater asymmetry in the form of a delay in the phase of the waves. Repulsion results in an increase in the degrees of freedom and the entropy. Attraction results in a decrease in the degrees of freedom. All forces should be mediated by particles. The known candidate for this effect is the photon which produces a delay of gravity in its direction of motion. Gravity moves at the speed of light. This adds to the original delay, though it is small, it means Dark Energy increases. But, as the Universe is finite, it will reach a maximum entropy and go through another phase transition when a symmetry of the repulsion force will be filled in. Dark matter has an important role to account for the ratio of gravitational mass vs repulsive mass. It could potentially have only an attractive component.

GR does not include the phase transitions or the Big Bang...

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What have I missed regarding This Einstein thought experiment?

« on: 18/03/2018 23:10:39 »

In General Relativity, light has a constant speed locally only, due to gravity (different relative gravitational potential=different relative speed of light).

11

New Theories / Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

« on: 09/12/2016 21:56:38 »

ENTROPY AND THE UNIVERSE

If we postulate that the universe is finite and that there are a finite number of possibilities in the universe, it means the entropy is constant for the entire universe but it is increasing in any locality and any subset…


CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

According to my theory, there is an absolute time connecting everything in the universe. In this now, energy is conserved. That is why, energy is always conserved locally and that the speed of light is a local constant. The now is local only, for any observers or interactions. It is the connections of all localities. What we see is not what it is, but what it was! Though we live in the present, everything we perceive is in the past.

Time may be real in a block universe… Though the laws of physics may change over time, the number of possibilities must be finite if we want to keep the unitarity of the universe.


DIMENSIONS, PHOTONS AND MASSIVE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

A photon is made of two electric charges (probably half charges), one negative and one positive. A charge is an intersection between the two dimensions of time. The two charges are connected in a one dimensional space for each of the two time dimensions.

The first dimension of time is transversal to the relative motion and is based on the Planck time. This dimension produces a contraction of space. Thus it implies a transversal separation of the Planck length between the two charges or intersections.

The second time dimension is longitudinal, meaning it is in the direction of the relative motion. It is based on the Planck time multiplied by a fixed and finite value of Pi. This dimension produces an expansion of space. Thus it implies a longitudinal separation of the Planck length multiplied by Pi between the two charges or intersections (possible error of a factor of 2).

The two transversal components rotate independently around the longitudinal spacetime axis according to the local connections to the rest of the universe (attractive and repulsive). This produces a three dimensional spacetime.

If the charges are connected in two one-dimensional spaces how do we have three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime? Something is obviously missing.

For massive elementary particles like the electron and the quarks, the two charges are connected in a two dimensional longitudinal and expanded space for their transversal components which is the strong interaction between the two charges. This produces three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime by their relations to the rest of the universe.

All this is local and limited by the speed of light. Only the Planck time and quantization is non local. The two charges of a particle are probably non locally correlated in the two dimensional longitudinal space to keep a quantized spin and form a ring. This ring is then correlated to all other particles of the universe in a three dimensional space.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How strong is the evidence that the Electron is not a composite particle

« on: 23/09/2016 21:12:55 »

I would say that the best evidence is the electron-positron annihilation resulting in photons. There are some experiments that suggest the fragmentation of the charge and others suggesting the separation of the electron quantum states. Theoretically speaking, the fact that the electron has proper mass, spin, charge and other characteristics is a strong sign of composite elements due to relativity and Mach's principle.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What Is the Temperature Of a Black Hole ?

« on: 19/09/2016 22:00:38 »

The temperature inside the 'event horizon' is meaningless. But Hawking found an approximation of the actual temperature at the event horizon for a non rotating black hole. But just outside the event horizon, matter infalling can raise the temperature to high extremes...

http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

Nice to see the sheepy is well and alive...

What is the temperature of a laser beam for a photon in the beam?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What would happen to a marble dropped into a hole through the Earth?

« on: 27/07/2016 23:21:00 »

If there would be no air, the marble would fall and accelerate until it reaches the middle of the earth. Then it would slow down until it would stop on the other side. Then it would fall back to your side in the same manner in a perpetual motion.

In reality, the air would slow it down by friction and the marble would never reach the other side. The oscillation would be shorter for every motion back and forth until it would stop in the middle of the earth where there is no acceleration due to gravity.

I neglected the fact that the earth rotates. The earth rotation would cause the marble to hit the wall in a complexed pattern depending on where you dig the hole... To minimize it, the best would be to dig a hole from the north geographic pole to the south geographic pole.