Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: guest45734 on 01/10/2018 10:10:19
-
Please comment on what I have been mulling over below.
I know the original Big Bang term was coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke, as he believed in a static universe at the time, which has also been mostly discredited. The original big bang theory is dead now replaced with an inflationary universe without singularities.
An idea got stuck in my head and the reason for this chat thread is as follows:-
1) space and time at the quantum level only appear in an expanding space, and are thought to be emergent.
2) this is driven by dark energy, likely quantum fluctuations, entangled or not doesn't matter :) .
3) the expansion of space must have happened before matter came into existence.
4) In a zero energy universe gravity is assumed to be negative energy and mass +ve energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
5) In a vast homogeneous rapidly expanding universe, disturbances in the dark energy may have happened as they would in a liquid,
6) Disturbances representing -ve energy / gravity may cause matter to come into existence, forming nebulae, such as the horse head nebulae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula
The thing that got me stuck in a loop was that LIGO detected gravitational waves and it was proven they travelled at the speed of light because they arrived at the same time as radiation from a black hole merger. Is it possible that no radiation escaped the merger could the radiation have been created by the gravitational wave as it passed through our universe. Can gravitational waves create mattter I wondered, could huge amounts of gas swirling around in nebulae create gravity fluctuations and more matter and then the loop was stuck.
Does anyone sane or otherwise have a comment on the above ????? Is the answer in Lindes inflationery universe ?????
Edit does anyone have a really good link on Lindes eternal inflationary universe theory. The following link is an overview http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/Chaotic_inflation_theory.html
-
I am following a number of ideas that suggest a single big bang is based on ???????? also 8)
A gravitational fluctuation in a expanding space time could give rise to mass, so I am still wondering could ligo have detected the creation of energy via a gravitational wave as a result of a BH merger. Nothing gets out of a black hole ????? except maybe hawking radiation, or 3 solar masses of gravitational waves.
-
Maybe Fred hoyle was right about more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis . Putting aside the curve fits of the big bang his steady state universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_model sounds quite plausible.
Matter "may" be constantly coming into existence as suggested by Hoyle. Maybe fringe physcists like Lerner have a better explanation of CBR than the Big Bang.
CBR is theorized to be even through out the universe according to Big Bang theory, Big Bang theory cant explain cold spots measured by the plank satellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot
-
This search result will give anyone interested in theoretical physics hours of fun, or boredom depending on which lecture you watch, there is something for everyone. Quantum gravity to multiverses all theoretical and beyond the scope of this forum. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Theoretical+Physics+Forums&FORM=RESTAB .
-
This chat is rather one sided, so I will simplify what I am thinking to complete Noddy level.
Starting at a point in space before matter existed, quantum fluctuations appeared and disappeared expanding space time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation, and causing space time to advance forward https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691, as a result of the rapid expansion of space time, fluctuations in space time appeared, as gravitational waves -ve energy, which induced matter to exist +ve energy.
These gravitational waves may have been like those detected by Ligo. Reasoning at the same time as Ligo detected gravitational waves gamma rays were detected, gamma rays are given off when particle anti particle pairs collide and annihilate each other, the gravitational wave could have created them in a zero energy universe.
The expansion of the universe is driven by dark energy due to quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, these virtual particles when they come into existence are entangled, by various theories, matter causes the absorption of entangled virtual particles and the slowing of the expansion of space time.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle predicts quantum fluctuations/virtual particles and is the pillar of quantum mechanics. I have posted enough on other threads for anyone reading my posts to know what I am driving at, and to show my grammar is crap ::)
-
Heres 4 possibilities on before a or multiple big bangs http://www.bigbangcentral.com/before_bb_page.html.
Poplawskis ideas are not included in the link above so being one of the most recent here is a link https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.08076.pdf
Rather than a massive quantum fluctuation giving rise to all matter in the universe is it not more logical multiple little ones continually give rise to matter.
Hey ho its fun chatting :)
Edit there is a russian naked science forum discussing what is inside a BH. https://naked-science.ru/article/nakedscience/singulyarnost-dobro . If a BH destroys matter at a singularity would it not also destroy virtual particles, if virtual particles are the source of gravity, dark energy and the expansion of space then a BH must also be contracting space.
Edit an amusing thought ref a BH and photons, if light loses energy as it tries to escape a BH eventually ceasing to exist, when it enters a BH it must increase its energy, by conservation of energy could a photon gain enough energy as it entersa BH to escape the BH assuming it doesnot hit something in the middle :)
-
This is what I reckon it is not a new theory. Its a noddy level conglomeration of ideas.
Space is a funny old thing with more than just the basic 4 space time dimensions we perceive.
At the beginning of time before any matter or space time dimensions existed there could be no time dimensions or x y z dimensions as we perceive them. A dimensionless dimension existed which today still exists and has the ability to connect all points in space time together a bit like a membrane. This dimensionless dimension allows near instantaneous transfer of information between entangled particles, like an EPR bridge. Within this dimensionless dimension quantum fluctuations occurred causing the expansion of space time (governed by the HUP). This expansion was not uniform at the early stages of the universe. Gaps between clumps of space time(quantum fluctuations) appeared as singularities, this caused matter to be pulled into existence, which swirled around other gaps in space time, which are also known as BH's today. etc etc When looking into a BH you are looking at a dimensionless place, which could be connected to all of space time via ER bridges. Geons are interesting to look at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
Whether or not any of the theories above ref exploding black holes Big Bangs etc are likely occurrences is interesting to think about. In a zero energy universe quantum fluctuations gave rise to gravity which caused matter to come into existence, gravity did not manifest itself after some big bang, which ignores the laws of thermodynamics.
Gravity is explained by Prof Verlinde as I wanted to discuss on other threads. Dark matter is complete nonsense and a result of pushing Einsteins Field Equations beyond breaking point. Gravity is governed by an inverse square law, near to the centre of galaxies and by an inverse law as you approach the outer parts of galaxies.
Whilst LIGO detected the gravitational waves being emitted from the black hole merger, when it occurred 3 solar masses of energy was lost from the BH's as gravitational waves. As the gravitational waves was detected radiation assumed to have escaped the BH's also arrived, apparently confirming gravitational waves travel at light speed, could that radiation have been created by the gravitational fluctuation or was it more likely from the accretion discs around the BH's.
An amusing thought ref space time and the aether and every other theory, they are all entangled :) They are all governed by the HUP and the basics of Quantum theory. ;)
Apologies for the crap grammar, and brief explanation. As you can see by the chat I have unanswered questions, but hey ho, its nice to have time to think about these things. ;D
-
Another random thought occurred to me, the answer is not clear.
Can a photon spontaneously WITHOUT reacting with another particle, decay into a particle. I know particles can annihilate each other producing gamma rays. Can the opposite happen, it is required for theories like the Big bang, but has it ever been shown to happen.
In the beginning there was light, is a key requirement of some BB theories. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/570-where-did-the-matter-in-the-universe-come-from-intermediate .
I can not find any experimental evidence showing a photon can change into a particle. However there is tons of stuff saying a photon cant convert into a particle. Electron positron collision results in 2 gamma rays can the reverse happen, could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.
-
could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.
Yes. A pair of gamma ray photons of the right energy can interact to form an electron-positron pair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
-
could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.
Yes. A pair of gamma ray photons of the right energy can interact to form an electron-positron pair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
Thanks for the reply :)
I am aware of such things as photons interacting with other particles creating electron positron pairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production. However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen, A photon must interact with a particle with enough energy to produce positron electron pairs and some wreckage.
Matter can be transformed via interaction with high energy photons, but photon + photon interaction on its own does not produce particles as far as I can see from all the links I have followed.
Solar radiation produces unstable particles like muons but this must again be through interaction with other particles.
Inside a BH photons become trapped and circle around in ever decreasing circles until perhaps they disappear up their own ass like the usalem bird. Could Black holes convert photons into particles. Again the Geon is vaguely interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
In a state before the big bang and the HUP was only just starting out in the observable universe, could planck sized BHs have caused Hawking radiation of sufficient energy to create the fundamental particles of the universe.
Inside a BH space time dimensions dont exist, before the expansion of the universe space time dimensions did not exist.
Could the absence of quantum fluctuations be regarded as a BH???
-
I just trawled up this Interesting PDF on particle physics that might be of interest to others on the forum https://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/BSM.pdf Beyond the standard model.
-
I just trawled up this Interesting PDF on particle physics that might be of interest to others on the forum https://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/BSM.pdf Beyond the standard model.
This pdf beats the crap out of talking sh1t on politics, it raises lots of little why questions, no one likes to answer or even speculate about.
-
The idea of white holes appearing out of higher dimensional black holes or collapsing stars has been around for a while. https://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487.pdf . The idea still does not address where the original matter in the universe comes from.
An understanding of what space is (how many dimensions it has) and how gravity works at the quantum level, which must include entanglement according to a number of the new theories on gravity.
Bye for now
-
@Kryptid photon photon interactions haven't been experimentally proven to produce particles. HOWEVER there is a experiment proposed to try and do exactly that http://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2014.95.epdf?referrer_access_token=gtnstu76jAKS6TQAZQTsddRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NXHSbPuQX-DuvNS6MIB4iiqnzPlMfPSXVHLrQ1kqbCsCTkZ_vvCRij5jyXT4yp4SSHxI8fIJrN_rOYp20tF-iorbqgsMlgy1HsSlpVyiLitSoTTAYw-QpOUdRpq4ORit5gIXV1pIcxeuyLQH7yjo6fFAjodlrkMIJ-e_jZqcjY5R6u9XHaQtMqMuIlKGMReGhNUmNJxfJ9YYr48ljaUnuh-8q38JT_9LjceSihXkWDjw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.universetoday.com
It might interest you a little
----------------------------------------
In a version of QLG I have just had the misfortune to read it, indicates that singularities in BH's dont exist but wormholes to other universes or locations in our own universe might exist. As if anyone would believe or even suspect that might be possible.
-
However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen,
Then you must not have read the link I provided:
Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons.
-
Quote from: dead cat on Yesterday at 11:12:16However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen,Then you must not have read the link I provided:
Yes I did, it lacks experimental evidence etc etc. Quoting from it "it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations. "
Even regarding photons as particles they are not made of quarks or leptons. I understand it makes theoretical sense that if a electron positron pair collision can produce gamma rays/photons with 511eV of energy, then in some way the process should be able to be reversed, it has NOT been done as yet.
Photons are not made of quarks they have spin 0 and no charge whereas quarks have spin + or -. and have charge. The proposed experiment I linked to is the only one which attempts to create particles from bosons, and it is still theoretical and still hasn't been done yet.
I don't buy the big bang does any one else, except the catholic church? All energy in the universe appeared from a singularity, where did it come from in the first place. Nothing gets out of a black hole except by hawking radiation or gravitational waves.
Hoyle pretty much covered everything from after the assumed big bang or expansion of the universe as I linked to above. If nothing gets out of a BH and we live in a zero energy universe. Do we live in a higher dimensional black hole in a lower dimensional space time white hole.
I have just taken delivery of a book by Kip Thorne which is going to amuse me for a week or so. So I will stop waffling on for a while. :)
-
Is it useful to compare the big bong with black holes when the former isn't sitting in Spacetime (or a yet-to-be-extended fabric of space) while the latter are? Nothing can get out of a black hole (or leave the event horizon in an outward direction) because the speed of light in the space there is limited to zero, but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing imposing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff coming out of there because it doesn't need to move relative to the fabric to spread outwards. The fabric simply explodes out and takes all that content to the point where its density is no longer strong enough to reduce the speed of light through the fabric to zero, freeing it all up to start moving under gravitational attraction.
-
Is it useful to compare the big bong with black holes when the former isn't sitting in Spacetime (or a yet-to-be-extended fabric of space) while the latter are? Nothing can get out of a black hole (or leave the event horizon in an outward direction) because the speed of light in the space there is limited to zero, but with a black hole, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing imposing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff coming out of there because it doesn't need to move relative to the fabric to spread outwards. The fabric simply explodes out and takes all that content to the point where its density is no longer strong enough to reduce the speed of light through the fabric to zero, freeing it all up to start moving under gravitational attraction.
I read your post a number of times from different angles, confused myself and the following emerged ???
A Big bong :) black hole singularity or wormhole still connecting all points to an expanding space time via another dimension may not need to allow things to escape a BH singularity. We may still be inside a BH connected firmly to a singularity in another dimension. Nothing is being thrown or accelerated outwards away from a singularity, the space time dimension itself is expanding independant of a higher dimensional singularity connecting all points in space time. (Idea ripped off from EPR=ER bridges) :)
Im still reading my new book by Kip Thorne its good.
-
Sorry about the confusion there - I used the words "black hole" instead of "big bang" in the middle of my post - it was supposed to say "but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it".
-
but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it".
Understood: but nothing is being accelerated, space time is expanding from the notional singularity (other connecting dimension) of the big bang. Modern theories don't have a singularity in the big bang, its more like a region.
Galaxies at the outer edges of the visible universe are moving away from us at an increasing rate. Those galaxies are not accelerating away from us. The space time between us and them is expanding. Effectively other galaxies are in free fall away from us, as we are from all other galaxies point of view.
:) A political solution to the notional big bang singularity and the black hole singularity is to say they are both correct-ish. The big bang singularity evolves via expanding space time dimensions whereas the black hole singularity contracts space time dimensions back to a notional singularity (dimension) . ie space time dimensions do not exist in a singularity only another dimension remains. With an eye on entanglement this underlying dimension exists in all of space time connecting all points of space time. ie wormhole or dimension where space time dimensions do not exist. Quantum entanglement (spooky action) Wave particle duality are all be connected via this political dimension, distance doesn't matter when entangled matter is involved(FTL transmission of information is possible). All things are (may be) entangled to a certain extent via a dimension outside of space time. :) However who believes in political solutions to anything :(
If Popolawsi is right we might exist inside a wormhole :) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm
-
just making notes. EPR=ER conjecture
Without entanglement the universe pulls apart forming holes https://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797#/GRAPHIC ?
-
I think the view the holographic universe is a little over simplified, where it shows just two points connecting different locations in space, by folding a two dimensional sheet.
I think it would be more accurate to state that all points in space are connected to a certain extent, via at least one extra dimension 5th dimension. This is demonstrated on a small scale by entanglement. Furthermore I think Eric Verlinde is on the ball with his theories on gravity and entanglement.
https://www.universetoday.com/13190/when-black-holes-explode-measuring-the-emission-from-the-fifth-dimension/
https://www.space.com/2535-mini-black-holes-reveal-5th-dimension.html
Does anyone know if the "Gamma-ray Large Space Telescope (GLAST) scheduled for launch in 2007! has reported any results in support of their theory ref 5 dimensional black holes. Could the gamma ray bursts occasionally detected be evidence of mini 5 dimensional black holes exploding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Gamma-ray_Space_Telescope
Kip Thornes space craft was damaged by one :) they are theoretically possible and they can explode theoretically :).
Further more chicken or the egg ideas does a blackhole need to have mass, in a pre big bang world. Could a dimension devoid of quantum fluctuations be regarded as a black hole. Could patches of quantum fluctuations(space time unfold) appear like a multiverse then coalesce around a dimension with no quantum fluctuations( unfolded space time) black holes with no mass.
-
In order to unify gravity and magnetism was considered for a time as 5 dimensional, but the gozzintas were a bit complicado. Kaluza Klein theory rises from this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space Einsteins field equations can be written in 5 dimensions apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume there is at least one extra dimension, if not an additional 8 or 9. However 5 dimensions I can just about manage in my head. Viewing space time as existing in a higher dimensional singularity, which acts like a membrane connecting all points in space can be amusing ::) Alternatively look at the different shapes in the link above for various mathematical representations of 5d space.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tryon#cite_ref-21
Without quantum fluctuations in space time, do we have a blackhole or no space time dimensions? Would we just have a dimensionless space?
Question what happens to quantum fluctuations at absolute zero do they cease, reduce, become more spaced out, accumulate more/less energy, last longer etc etc ? at 2.7 kelvin are they noticeably different ? :-\
-
Question what happens to quantum fluctuations at absolute zero do they cease, reduce, become more spaced out, accumulate more/less energy, last longer etc etc ? at 2.7 kelvin are they noticeably different ?
Bose Einstein condensates, and Hawking radiation are the thing to look at https://www.britannica.com/science/Bose-Einstein-condensate.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/16/quantum_hawking_radiation_has_been_created_in_a_lab_claims_physicst/
Could a virtual blackhole convert virtual particles into real particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_black_hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_particle
-
Could the gamma ray bursts occasionally detected be evidence of mini 5 dimensional black holes exploding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Gamma-ray_Space_Telescope
Could these gamma ray bursts be coming from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.6562.pdf Blackholes due to an internal plank star.
The lighter version of plank star, https://phys.org/news/2014-02-astrophysicists-duo-planck-star-core.html
-
Good Morning :)
It seems may be barking up the right tree, a Bose Einstein condensate is likely what was around before any big bang. Check it out by googling zero kelvin big bang arxiv. Or follow the following link for a bit of easy reading. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/cosmological-inflation-reproduced-in-a-lab
-
and, after all the matter and energy, in my mind; a greater question remains:
what is the purpose of life at all? all thru evolution and the circle of life; what is accomplished?
one form feeds on a lesser form, dies and returns to feed a lesser form. but to what avail?
it sometimes seems to me nothing more than a science experiment by a student at a university in a galaxy far, far away.
-
Er what: I wasn't asking to chat with space men a wanting plank like chat, I was wanting to focus on space and the planck epoch and what could have been happening at before a big bang when the universe was in a very low level of entropy as found in various condensates, I mentioned Bose Einstein type condensates, but others exist and have now been created in space in zero gravity environments. These can only happen in very low temperature environments at very low entropy approaching zero.
At absolute zero before any expansion occurred leading up to the plank epoch what was happening. I tried throwing a few ideas around above which are based on extant theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#A_more_detailed_summary
-
Follows my daily googles to answer my questions ;D
I am sure someone on this forum must have heard of Hartle and Hawking. I googled entanglement before the planck epoch. The following interesting links popped up amongst many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state edit there is something wrong with this link you need to copy and paste the full url to go to the correct web page.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07702.pdf
Space-time never existed prior to the planck epoch. Only a timeless kind of space existed according to Profs Hawking and Hartle. Sounds a bit like a wormhole does anyone have a comment ? or maybe discuss the thread or have anything to say regarding the subject of the thread.
-
In a zero energy universe gravity is regarded as having negative energy whilst everthing else has +ve energy. Black holes have loads of gravity, could the event horizon be regarded like an electron cloud orbiting a nucleus.
Alternatively I kind of wondered could planck sized black holes be fundamental particles, would any one like to comment on the following link https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/ ????
-
I find it difficult to take anything seriously if it's based on Spacetime - Minkowski's 4D model leads to all manner of unnecessary problems with time. There is no actual time in Spacetime - nothing ever moves at all (unless you add Newtonian time to it to control the rate at which things move through the time dimension), so it is just a special space dimension in which everything has infinite length. When you get weird stuff happening in black holes that leads to stuff supposedly disappearing out of the universe, it's just a fiction that comes out of the reality that GR's nothing more than a warped mathematical abstraction.
When something falls into a black hole, you can calculate how it supposedly crosses the event horizon and falls down to the singularity, its clock continuing to tick at one second per second unslowed, but in reality it is slowed to a halt. For it to reach the centre, or even just to cross the EV, it would take more than an infinite amount of time as measured by the rest of the universe, and the universe continues to play with that black hole for countless trillions of years, merging it with others and then evaporating it away through the Hawking radiation process, all while the falling thing is still falling towards the centre. In reality, things that fall into a black hole remain suspended at the EV (or where the EV was at that time) for the whole time that the black hole continues to exist in this universe, and there are no singularities in black holes - they can't form until after more than an infinite amount of time has gone past, and by that time, they still can't form because the black holes have evaporated away. There are no wormholes - the content of a black hole is simply a spherical volume of space throughout which the speed of light is zero and any matter contained there is locked in place by its inability to function or move, while the presence of that matter and energy keeps the local speed of light down to zero.
Time is Newtonian, and it stretches back before the big bong. What happens to the imaginary "time" dimension there is a distraction away from the real physics that must actually have been involved because there is no time dimension.
-
I find it difficult to take anything seriously if it's based on Spacetime - Minkowski's 4D model leads to all manner of unnecessary problems with time. There is no actual time in Spacetime - nothing ever moves at all (unless you add Newtonian time to it to control the rate at which things move through the time dimension), so it is just a special space dimension in which everything has infinite length.
Time is Newtonian, and it stretches back before the big bong. What happens to the imaginary "time" dimension there is a distraction away from the real physics that must actually have been involved because there is no time dimension.
The atomic clocks on Global Positioning Satellite Systems run typically 1.5seconds slower than those on earth and need continual adjustment otherwise GPS systems in peoples cars would not be very accurate. Einsteins Field Equations are a very accurate model and clearly show time does slow down in a gravitational field, they accurately predict the existence of black holes, I am inclined to believe them, except where they disagree with the various quantum theories. EFE have shortfalls in such things as singularities and what is happening when we zoom in for a closer look, they also may be incorrectly predicting the existence of dark matter according to at least 4 alternative theories I have read which in most part agree with all einsteins other predictions.
Time is Newtonian only in your reference frame, time slows down and speeds up. Time itself emerges from quantum field theory as does spacetime. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate it is not static. The edge of the visible universe is moving away from us at approx 3c
When you get weird stuff happening in black holes that leads to stuff supposedly disappearing out of the universe, it's just a fiction that comes out of the reality that GR's nothing more than a warped mathematical abstraction.
When something falls into a black hole, you can calculate how it supposedly crosses the event horizon and falls down to the singularity, its clock continuing to tick at one second per second unslowed, but in reality it is slowed to a halt. For it to reach the centre, or even just to cross the EV, it would take more than an infinite amount of time as measured by the rest of the universe, and the universe continues to play with that black hole for countless trillions of years, merging it with others and then evaporating it away through the Hawking radiation process, all while the falling thing is still falling towards the centre. In reality, things that fall into a black hole remain suspended at the EV (or where the EV was at that time) for the whole time that the black hole continues to exist in this universe, and there are no singularities in black holes - they can't form until after more than an infinite amount of time has gone past, and by that time, they still can't form because the black holes have evaporated away.
There are no wormholes - the content of a black hole is simply a spherical volume of space throughout which the speed of light is zero and any matter contained there is locked in place by its inability to function or move, while the presence of that matter and energy keeps the local speed of light down to zero.
Most of what you are talking about here is relative to the viewers position, depending on if you are the entering the black hole or the observer.
The weird stuff is the interesting stuff, time dilation is pretty well understood, but the weird stuff is what causes people to speculate including I think Einstein Podolsky and Rosen, in their EPR conjecture which goes some way to explain non locality and quantum entanglement. As you must be aware there is a lot of work going on in quantum computing and cryptography which relies on entanglement, or spooky action at a distance. Wave particle duality regardless of which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation you accept happens.
To get ones head around where matter comes from in the universe one has to go back to pre the planck epoch. Hawking theorized about a space time without the time dimension just before his death. All of space time today is full of quantum fluctuations/virtual particles gravitons? call them what you like. The casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations. Before our observable space time expanded there was a spacetime without particles of any kind. The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere, energy can not be created or destroyed, therefore the overall energy of the universe is a big 0. This is got around by taking gravity as -ve energy and all other forms of energy as being positive energy.
The big bang states all matter came out of very hot radiation ie bosons that appeared from now where and then miraculously formed into quarks and fermions etc. There is no evidence that a photons can form into particles, they can knock particles out of matter, and raise its energy level. An electron and positron can form into gamma rays, the process can not be reversed in the lab. It is blithely claimed that photons can convert into particles, it has never been done. So where do particles come from?
Looking at Hawking and Hartles work it indicates to me that at before the planck epoch there was a different kind of space. This space had no energy, only possible dimensions. I take the view that entanglement is proof that at least one extra dimension is possible. If the entangled wave function isnt travelling through space time limited by light speed, then it must be travelling via another dimension. Which when looking at the idea that matter is formed around micro blackholes which can be entangled, see EPR=ER conjecture, seems plausible.
Lindes theory on gravity and the holographic universe are both based on entanglement, so I am inclined to think they are both using slightlly different theories to explain the same thing.
Thanks for the response by the way, I am getting bored talking to myself :)
Edit photons have gravitational fields as does all energy, they are emitted from atoms when electrons fall to lower energy levels in the atom. Is that also a chicken and egg maybe like the gravitational energy given of by black hole mergers, could that gravitational energy also have carried of an equal amont of photons or mass from the black hole merger.
Edit 2 just a note to myself from the following mostly unrelated but interesting link https://phys.org/news/2018-11-photonic-devices-poised-enable-deep.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter
"Space isn't empty; it has roughly one proton and one electron per cubic centimeter, as well as a smattering of helium and other atoms."
-
This is the arxiv link on particles from black holes, I suspect no one will comment but what the hell. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202014.pdf
A photon has never turned into anything else other than a photon,
BUT would a photon spin 0 trapped in a micro BH event horizon be released if two micro BH's with opposite spin collided. If two micro black holes collide with opposite spin representing electrons and positrons spin + / - 1/2 the photons might be released as 2 gamma rays with 511eV of energy. Would the micro black hole evaporate or would it chase after the photons creating a kind of soliton wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton.
Edit lacking guidance and answers "the misguided shall lead the gullible"
with breeding and deliberately misquoting! "the feebleminded might inherit the earth".
-
The atomic clocks on Global Positioning Satellite Systems run typically 1.5seconds slower than those on earth and need continual adjustment otherwise GPS systems in peoples cars would not be very accurate. Einsteins Field Equations are a very accurate model and clearly show time does slow down in a gravitational field, they accurately predict the existence of black holes, I am inclined to believe them, except where they disagree with the various quantum theories.
All of that slowing works just as well in a model with Newtonian time instead of a time dimension. The point I'm making is that if you want to make sense of the universe and to get QM and relativity to fit together, don't be afraid to drop Spacetime if it gets in the way - it may well be a key part of the problem because it isn't real. Time in a Spacetime model can't run unless you add Newtonian time to it to work along with the "time" dimension, but a model with two kinds of time in it is contrived. Without Newtonian time in the model, all you have is a block universe in which everything's static and all the apparent causation that makes it look as if the future is derived from the past though a process of causes causing effects would have to be fake - no causes can ever cause any effects without running a process, and running a process is necessarily locked to running time. If you have running time though, you don't need the "time" dimension. Lorentz Ether Theory is a rival model that makes the same predictions as GR about clocks slowing in gravity wells by using the same maths with a simpler explanation, and it removes all the weird stuff about time.
Time is Newtonian only in your reference frame, time slows down and speeds up.
Time doesn't need to slow down at all - clocks can simply run slow by under-recording the amount of time that has passed for them. A moving light clock will run slow because of the increased round trip distance for the light to go along to complete each tick, and a clock in a gravity well will run slow because the speed of light is lower in a gravity well. If you have a progressive slowing of light as you go down into a gravity well, you automatically curve the path that light follows, and if matter is made of waves, it too will curve in the same manner, leading to an acceleration in the direction of slower light speed. The gained kinetic energy that comes from a particle descending into a gravity well also doesn't come out of nowhere by magic, but is precisely equal to the "lost" energy that results from the functionality of that particle slowing down due to the slowed speed of light. Gravity is not a force in the LET model if you consider matter to be made of waves. By all means keep working with Spacetime models, but be aware that they aren't the only game in town.
Time itself emerges from quantum field theory as does spacetime.
If Spacetime is coming out of it, don't be too quick to trust it. It could appear to come out of it though because the abstraction is still compatible with most of the key numbers, but you'd have to be actively trying to manufacture it.
Most of what you are talking about here is relative to the viewers position, depending on if you are the entering the black hole or the observer.
Either you have no running time and make causation impossible, or you have running time and have to have some clocks run slower than others in order to avoid event-meshing failures (where something taking a shorter route through time from one Spacetime location to another gets there too soon to interact with another object that takes longer to travel between the same two Spacetime locations). The only rational models have some clocks actually running slow, and sometimes they slow to a complete halt, but once you've accepted the need for that, you also have to recognise that the "time" dimension is redundant.
The weird stuff is the interesting stuff, time dilation is pretty well understood, but the weird stuff is what causes people to speculate including I think Einstein Podolsky and Rosen, in their EPR conjecture which goes some way to explain non locality and quantum entanglement. As you must be aware there is a lot of work going on in quantum computing and cryptography which relies on entanglement, or spooky action at a distance. Wave particle duality regardless of which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation you accept happens.
You don't need extra weirdness (a "time" dimension) to handle the weirdness. If you have a fabric of space expanding, clearly there's another kind of space fabric in which it's expanding, and that outer fabric can provide more dimensions than we perceive from here. With our space fabric putting a limit on the speed of light but not putting the same limit on the expansion of the fabric, it's clear that higher speeds of travel are available through the outer fabric, so spooky action at a distance becomes trivial. Light and matter can only travel through the inner fabric, so they are bound by its speed limit, but some aspect of them may be free to travel at much higher speed on the outside, at such high speed that it may appear to us to be instantaneous.
To get ones head around where matter comes from in the universe one has to go back to pre the planck epoch. Hawking theorized about a space time without the time dimension just before his death. All of space time today is full of quantum fluctuations/virtual particles gravitons? call them what you like. The casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations. Before our observable space time expanded there was a spacetime without particles of any kind. The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere, energy can not be created or destroyed, therefore the overall energy of the universe is a big 0. This is got around by taking gravity as -ve energy and all other forms of energy as being positive energy.
Given that gravity appears to be nothing more than the speed of light being lowered in the vicinity of mass, does it make sense to count it as negative energy when it is merely an aspect of the positive energy which slows light and thereby produces the effect called gravity? Maybe it does - is something being taken from the space fabric that enables matter to exist? No matter can exist without slowed-propagation of everything being imposed through the local space.
The big bang states all matter came out of very hot radiation ie bosons that appeared from now where and then miraculously formed into quarks and fermions etc. There is no evidence that a photons can form into particles, they can knock particles out of matter, and raise its energy level. An electron and positron can form into gamma rays, the process can not be reversed in the lab. It is blithely claimed that photons can convert into particles, it has never been done. So where do particles come from?
If you can turn an electron and positron into gamma rays, there's bound to be some way to turn electromagnetic radiation into those particles, but there's no guarantee that it can be done by feeding in gamma rays of the same energy as come out. It might require a lot more photons of lower energy coming together by chance in a particular pattern that enables the energy to lock together into a pair of particles without just coming straight back out again, but you'd also need some way to make the particles move apart so that they don't just annihilate again immediately. What sort of models do we have as to how the energy can be locked together in stable particles? What stops matter just decaying into energy? Does it always need a mix of matter and antimatter to happen? Perhaps that's where the stability comes from, but then how can there be such a lack of antimatter in the universe? We have radioactive particles decaying and turning some of their mass into radiation, so is that happening without antimatter being involved? Does QM provide viable answers for these questions?
... Which when looking at the idea that matter is formed around micro blackholes which can be entangled, see EPR=ER conjecture, seems plausible.
You don't need a "time" dimension to produce black holes or to enable things to communicate by a faster route than they can through the space fabric - all you need's a way of looking out sideways into that other dimension and of hooking up to distant objects through it. I have an idea about matter and energy not fully existing in our universe, but sitting on the outside and merely touching the space fabric. It would be possible for that connection to spread out from a point into a ring and split into many parts (with that spread limited to the speed of light), but all still connected to the same external piece of matter. This allows a photon to spread out and then choose a single location to land all its energy simply by detaching all it's connections to the space fabric except for the one where it makes its existence felt. It thus has no difficulty passing through multiple slits and creating interference patterns with itself before picking a place on a screen to deliver its full force. If you want entangled photons, all you need is a link between them which can extend billions of miles if necessary outside of the space fabric and it will provide near-instant communication between them in the same way. Weird? No. All we see are the places where it touches the fabric, so we're only seeing a tiny fraction of the underlying reality.
Thanks for the response by the way, I am getting bored talking to myself :)
You're clearly trying to widen your search for ideas, and you have to think outside the box if you're to make a breakthrough, so it's worth flinging some ideas at you from unconventional angles just in case any of them resonate with something. Those who set too much store by any existing pieces of imperfect models are likely too fixed in place to make significant progress. Something's clearly wrong with some of the models and they may have to be ditched in large measure to find other models that mesh better. It's very clear to me that the "time" dimension's a red herring that's wasted a lot of effort and talent.
Edit photons have gravitational fields as does all energy, they are emitted from atoms when electrons fall to lower energy levels in the atom. Is that also a chicken and egg maybe like the gravitational energy given of by black hole mergers, could that gravitational energy also have carried of an equal amont of photons or mass from the black hole merger.
I need to read up on that - I don't know what the mechanism for gravity waves is, so I can't visualise where the energy comes from, but more movement energy (speed of functionality) must be lost from the black holes as they merge, even though the functionality of the material that they've collected has already stopped and can't slow further. This again points to the reality that all matter must be spread out and not all located in a point, so a lot of it surrounds the visible part of the matter like a dark matter cloud, and that part stays out of the black hole. This is necessary anyway in order for it to slow light away from the black hole in order to provide the black hole's gravity. The functionality of that spread-out part of the matter can slow further as the black holes move together and merge, so my guess would be that the gravity wave's energy is tapped from there too rather than being a reuse of any of the matter or light that's fallen "into" either black hole.
-
Again thanks for the reply
I am inclined to disagree that the speed of light is not constant, numerous tests have confirmed it. However the path that light takes from point A to point B in a apparently curved space or a flat space might give rise to two different times for the passage of light between A and B or between A and A, and B and B. The term curved space could easily be viewed as a flow of space to an object ie space is absorbed by mass, or perhaps more correctly the entanglement of space is reduced by mass/energy. I prefer Verlindes theory of entropic gravity based on entanglement, but the Holographic principle also uses entanglement.
You will notice the Hawking Hartle link above I am already pre planck epoch with no time dimension, also you will notice that with wormholes and entanglement time is not a feature.
If you can turn an electron and positron into gamma rays, there's bound to be some way to turn electromagnetic radiation into those particles, but there's no guarantee that it can be done by feeding in gamma rays of the same energy as come out.
I do not agree with this and it is it seems a fundamental part of big bang physics, photons have never been observed in the lab to change into fermions. This is one of the reasons why I latched onto the micro black hole theory which seems to be able to simulate the fundamental particles, including positrons and electrons. As you are aware electrons and positrons can produce gamma rays when they annihilate each other. It raises the question could wave particle duality be explained in a similar way via a micro blackhole and photon.
Edit found this link creating fermions theoretically via entanglement (wormholes) similar to the ideas above https://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html
From my own Speculations.
Ref singularities in blackholes, I do not buy them. I have a picture in my mind which is evolving of a dimension that is not spacial and not dependent on time, this dimension can connect all points in space, based on entanglement and wormholes EPR=ER ideas, effectivley everything is entangled to a certain extent. Both our 3 D Space and time evolves and moves forward at different rates, depending on interactions with matter.
Edit this sort of shows what I am waffling about https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829224-200-wormhole-entanglement-solves-black-hole-paradox/ If susskind says something similar on a bigger scale then maybe I'm not mad.
Like you said time can only move forward, however it does not need to move at different speeds, additionally space does not need to be expanding uniformly, it can contract or expand more closley around mass.
This again points to the reality that all matter must be spread out and not all located in a point, so a lot of it surrounds the visible part of the matter like a dark matter cloud, and that part stays out of the black hole.
I dont by dark matter either its never been detected. Umh!! Thought provoking
A random thought on reality of space, if seperate observers in space were connected by a wormhole would they not appear to be next to each other ? Regardless of quantum fluctuations and the expansion of space time
I am trying to stay away from ether theories, as I understand ether it is highly flammable and can kill you if you drink it. Having said that quantum fluctuations/ dark energy/ even gravitons could be viewed as ether to a layman like me.
end of my ramble.
Does anyone have a more recent link to anything on micro blackhole particles being able to represent photons on annihilation.??
-
Gravity is not a force in the LET model if you consider matter to be made of waves
Just a wiki note on LET, I had to have a quick read up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory.
I am after where fundamental particles come from, which I don't think EFE or LET address. The Big bang requires its quarks to appear out of very hot radiation in a very short period of time. Looking before the theoretical quark epoch to the planck epoch, what dimensions existed. QLG suggests a black hole might of gone bang, plausible, but where did the matter in the black hole come from. Stars can super novae producing the heavier elements. But the basic quarks forming atoms, and electrons bobbing about in space came from somewhere. Entangled Quark pairs or entangled micro black holes appear to be the best things I have dredged up so far.
Late night waffle there is thought to be an in-balance of matter and anti matter in the universe but =+2/3e + 2/3e - 1/3e = e for a proton and -e for an electon, it kind of cancels out +ve matter and -ve matter. Prior to any heating at any big bang and the background temperature of space was < 2.7k. Condensates of entangled particles could easily have formed that may appeared out of the vacuum by one of the mechanisms mentioned. At very low temperares in a free fall condition ie no gravity these condensates would be more stable. Yada Yada, I think it is a cop out to accept matter all came into existence after some huge explosion and nothing ever existed before. Fermions can convert into gamma rays, I have dredged up a couple of theories that might allow photons to be converted back into particles.
-
Quantum fluctuations today prevent absolute zero easily being reached, and make it difficult to form Bose Einstein condensates. A condensate for them as don't know acts like a big particle in the lab, they cant be formed except at near absolute zero or below 2.7kelvin.
Conjecture for mild amusement, or discussion:- In the early universe before any hot expansion ie before Planck epoch, when the universe was at absolute zero, and space time had not expanded the first quantum fluctuations instantly formed a condensate from the vacuum made of virtual matter and antimatter entangled particles which filled all of space time, this condensate momentarily acted as a huge entangled particle, which due to gravity started collapsing in on itself, causing multiple explosions due to virtual particle interactions causing the rapid expansion and heating of space time, which today stops any further virtual particle condensates forming another big bang.
The Big bang initial quantum fluctuation from a hot singularity in space time, most likely was spread out over a larger area than any singularity, when the HUP switched on the creation of the universe may have been inevitable, and once warmed up no further matter can be created???? Unless you are talking Hawking radiation photons from a black hole :)
-
It is understood that entanglement survives better at low temperatures.
To support this point of view I managed to dredge the following link up, which supports my statement https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2611.
Extrapolating:- a pair of entangled fermions emerging from the vacuum of space at near zero will have a longer lifetime than if they appeared on the surface of the sun or in a accretion disc around a blackhole. Hawking radiation allows entangled quantum fluctuations to dissipate energy from a Black hole. A Condensate requires near absolute zero temp to stay formed.
If gravity is related to degrees( a question of focus, intensity, like a lense :) ) of entanglement, then entangled virtual particles in close proximity to each other would experience more gravity than theose seperated by a distance.
Do Bose Einstein condensates collapse due to gravitational attraction.??? I think they do, but do they.?????
-
I nearly posted this on another thread but restrained myself !
If a black hole is pulled apart forming two seperate blackholes theoretically they form a worm hole between them ie they are entangled according to ER theory.
Blackholes come in different sizes :)
Entanglement plays a big part in the Quantum world.
Particles pairs when separated are entangled, just like blackholes theoretically might be.
Via the ER=EPR conjecture and a bit of googling I stumbled on this amusing link
https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/ . It is an old theory revisited whereby particles may be caused by stable micro blackholes.
Any comments ;D
-
I nearly posted this on another thread but restrained myself !
If a black hole is pulled apart forming two seperate blackholes theoretically they form a worm hole between them ie they are entangled according to ER theory.
Blackholes come in different sizes :)
Entanglement plays a big part in the Quantum world.
Particles pairs when separated are entangled, just like blackholes theoretically might be.
Via the ER=EPR conjecture and a bit of googling I stumbled on this amusing link
https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/ . It is an old theory revisited whereby particles may be caused by stable micro blackholes.
Any comments ;D
The miracle of God ........
-
Via the ER=EPR conjecture and a bit of googling I stumbled on this amusing link
https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/ (https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/) . It is an old theory revisited whereby particles may be caused by stable micro blackholes.
Any comments ;D
I am toying with the idea that particles are composed of tiny quanta (maybe millions or billions of them), and the individual quanta have a momentary existence within the particle space, that includes formation out the the convergences of many tiny wave fronts, and the increasing density of the wave energy accumulated in those convergences causes them to "pulse".
The pulse cycle would be a collapse down to a natural density limit governed by the local environment there within the particle space, and a "bounce" off of that limit into expansion. The expansion phase of the pulse would mark the disbursal of the wave energy captured in the convergence, and that is why I call them momentary convergences (high energy density spots). The point is that the collapse phase of the individual quantum pulses might equate to a micro blackhole at the peak density of the collapse.
They aren't stable individually, but their out flowing quantum pulse of energy is immediately absorbed in adjacent convergences within the same particle space, and each of those new convergences then themselves accumulate wave energy until they reach quantum status and collapse/pulse out into a quantum spherical burst of energy. The entire particle space would be a frenzy of pulses in quantum increments.
On the basis that the particle space has maybe billions of those ongoing quantum high density spots pulsing within their particle space, a complex wave pattern of pulsing high density spots that collapse and expand, to sustain the presence of the particular particle.
Do you envision anything there worth talking about?
-
Is it valuable to contrast the enormous bong and dark gaps when the previous isn't sitting in Spacetime while the last is? Nothing can escape a dark opening on the grounds that the speed of light in the space there is constrained to zero, yet with the huge explosion, it's the texture of room that is being tossed outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing forcing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff leaving there on the grounds that it doesn't have to move in respect to the texture to spread outwards.
-
Is it valuable to contrast the enormous bong and dark gaps when the previous isn't sitting in Spacetime while the last is? Nothing can escape a dark opening on the grounds that the speed of light in the space there is constrained to zero, yet with the huge explosion, it's the texture of room that is being tossed outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing forcing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff leaving there on the grounds that it doesn't have to move in respect to the texture to spread outwards.
Mark
Pathetic attempt to spam us.
The enormous bong is the sound of your ban.
-
good on you Colin.
-
Do you envision anything there worth talking about?
Why not: Black hole theory and Big bang theory might not be 100% accurate, https://resonance.is/astrophysics-gets-turned-head-black-holes-come-first/ so there is some wiggle room for discussion. I do not fully agree that fundamental particles are made up of individual quanta. However Hawking radiation may also increase the mass of a black hole as easily as evaporate the black hole. Quantum fluctuations forming around the mouth of a microscopic black hole. Lets say pin ***** to a 5th dimension in space time, otherwise known as a wormhole is interesting.
This is not religion but I hold the following to be true and not speculative in any way.
In the beginning there was space, this space was as it is today filled with quantum fluctuations. Space does have more dimensions than the 4 space time dimensions, entanglement is proof of this.
Mass-less black holes ie wormholes in the fabric of space time, could become stable and via quantum fluctuations appearing around its mouth and acquire mass. These particles could form the original matter in the universe. This idea rides on the back of gravity is caused by entanglement to another dimension, which causes space time curvature.
Your oscillating quanta and black holes might be analogous to this concept, what do you think ?
Edit you might find this paper mildly interesting, on quantum contributions to black hole growth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1067.pdf It seems reasonable if a black hole can grow or evaporate, then there is a stable point in the middle whereby the size does not change. I am toying with the idea of down sizing this black hole to particle level.
-
Do you envision anything there worth talking about?
Why not: Black hole theory and Big bang theory might not be 100% accurate, https://resonance.is/astrophysics-gets-turned-head-black-holes-come-first/ (https://resonance.is/astrophysics-gets-turned-head-black-holes-come-first/) so there is some wiggle room for discussion.
That paper brings to the table a couple of things that I have been thinking/talking about here at TNS. The link between the micro and macro levels, the quantized nature of black holes, and a lot about variable densities of energy in space. I have bookmarked it and will spend more time with it.
I do not fully agree that fundamental particles are made up of individual quanta.
It is a radical idea, lol. I like it though because it leads to the thinking that the mass of particles changes in tiny increments in response to relative motion. The wave energy nature of space makes for a continual source of wave energy to "adjust" the mass of moving objects (in relative motion to each other and to all others) in very tiny increments. If you have tiny increments, and therefore tiny quantum amounts of wave energy, the change in mass to correspond with any amount of relative motion between any all other objects, large or small, is always right there surrounding the surface of the moving particles or objects from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. What I like about that is it allows particles and objects to be composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and the size and number of quanta can vary relative to multiple different objects, because a quantum increment can be as small as the convergence of tiny gravitational waves, or as large as a massive black hole, as suggested by the paper.
However Hawking radiation may also increase the mass of a black hole as easily as evaporate the black hole. Quantum fluctuations forming around the mouth of a microscopic black hole. Lets say pin ***** to a 5th dimension in space time, otherwise known as a wormhole is interesting.
This is not religion but I hold the following to be true and not speculative in any way.
In the beginning there was space, this space was as it is today filled with quantum fluctuations. Space does have more dimensions than the 4 space time dimensions, entanglement is proof of this.
Mass-less black holes ie wormholes in the fabric of space time, could become stable and via quantum fluctuations appearing around its mouth and acquire mass. These particles could form the original matter in the universe. This idea rides on the back of gravity is caused by entanglement to another dimension, which causes space time curvature.
I find three dimensions sufficient, but then I'm not big on wormholes, extra dimensions and entanglement allowing energy transfer between dimensions, but it is always interesting to consider those possibilities.
Your oscillating quanta and black holes might be analogous to this concept, what do you think ?
I do see the connection. Thanks for the link.
Edit you might find this paper mildly interesting, on quantum contributions to black hole growth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1067.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1067.pdf) It seems reasonable if a black hole can grow or evaporate, then there is a stable point in the middle whereby the size does not change. I am toying with the idea of down sizing this black hole to particle level.
An interesting concept to consider.
-
It is a radical idea
Lets hear more
I find three dimensions sufficient, but then I'm not big on wormholes, extra dimensions and entanglement allowing energy transfer between dimensions, but it is always interesting to consider those possibilities.
I would be inclined to disagree with you. Entanglement is a fact it happens and particles seperated by a distance work as one. But go ahead
I think I have posted enough on this forum to fuel a lot of thought, mostly based on extant theories. I am a little angry with the moderators at this time to post any further as I have been threatened with a ban without notice for apparently disobeying forum rules.
But would like to read your thoughts, I am sure one of the moderators might like to give you some input, or perhaps make comments on your theory. I apparently am not allowed to ask questions or speculate so be careful, the thought police are active.
-
It is a radical idea
Lets hear more
I find three dimensions sufficient, but then I'm not big on wormholes, extra dimensions and entanglement allowing energy transfer between dimensions, but it is always interesting to consider those possibilities.
I would be inclined to disagree with you. Entanglement is a fact it happens and particles seperated by a distance work as one. But go ahead
I think I have posted enough on this forum to fuel a lot of thought, mostly based on extant theories. I am a little angry with the moderators at this time to post any further as I have been threatened with a ban without notice for apparently disobeying forum rules.
But would like to read your thoughts, I am sure one of the moderators might like to give you some input, or perhaps make comments on your theory. I apparently am not allowed to ask questions or speculate so be careful, the thought police are active.
Here is a thought. I am posting regularly over in Thebox's DOGMA of Science thread in this sub-forum, for the time being. Thebox has permitted me to use his convenient thread without complaint, and has encouraged me through his own participation to an extent. Right now, @David Cooper, who advocates absolute time and space, and I are just about to discuss a simulation of my ISU model to evaluate if it can be done without sneaking in the absolutes of time and space. He says it will break down, and I am in it to learn. Head over there, post something to show you found it, and participate all you want.
-
I apparently am not allowed to ask questions or speculate so be careful, the thought police are active.
Most members here, including thebox and @Bogie_smiles would agree that this forum allows far more speculation and questions than most other science fora. However, we do ask members to respect the way we organise our forum and keep speculation to the appropriate sections - eg new theories and the lighter sections.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
Most people seem happy to do that.
-
I find three dimensions sufficient, but then I'm not big on wormholes, extra dimensions and entanglement allowing energy transfer between dimensions, but it is always interesting to consider those possibilities.
I would be inclined to disagree with you. Entanglement is a fact it happens and particles separated by a distance work as one.
Yeah, I don't entirely buy entanglement because I can't imagine a mechanism for it on a grand scale. Now on a local scale, at the quantum level, it is interesting, but there is a quantum range where tiny connections from a recent history of interaction, like what might produce entangled particles, would seem to "want" to decay quickly with distance. Though the two entangled particles share that history, I am thinking that the connection decays rapidly with distance. Maybe it never goes to zero, because we know the interaction took place back in time, but in order to pull off the feats that entangled particles are supposed to, at any distance, ... I don't know how it could work.
We are talking about the effect on the distant particle when one of the entangled particles is observed locally. If you take that as fact, then maybe wormholes or extra dimensions are in play, but I'm waiting for evidence that that kind of "action at a distance" is observable.
Walk me through what you find convincing evidence of it.
-
Very interesting article, I didn't actually read it. Your text was until now free of spam and I discovered that fact only just using the help of spammy-help.com advanced spam checker where you can easily check the content of your essay or other text for spam