[opportunity]

I don't see how you link quantum entanglement to the recession rates of galaxy groups.

My point is "where's quantum entanglement on a grand scale"? Why limit the idea to a lab, why not factor it in to the universe?

If we find reasonable evidence then yes, but at the moment you are introducing unrelated factors without any reasonable evidence. Making broad brush comments like this does nothing to move discussion forward but simply causes confusion for the person asking the question and starts to irritate your fellow posters.

Please read post above by @evan_au

Understood Colin. I failed to mention this article (been a bit busy) as a pre-idea to the one I presented: http://news.mit.edu/2017/loophole-bells-inequality-starlight-0207

The article raises the suggestion light from stars 600 light years away are in quantum entanglement. I'm merely suggesting that such could be evident between starts themselves, if we receive the idea as such. Its just a thought, nothing scientifically nefarious I hope, well, I didn't want to come across that way at all.

In regard to Evan's post about my point with the Planck scale and dark matter, there's another article that aims to marry the two, and this is besides the fact I was presuming dark matter and dark energy is not in violation of the Planck scale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269302020026


(I'll make sure I provide references for anything that seems too hypothetical from here on).

[Colin2B]

Understood Colin. I failed to mention this article (been a bit busy) as a pre-idea to the one I presented: http://news.mit.edu/2017/loophole-bells-inequality-starlight-0207

The article raises the suggestion light from stars 600 light years away are in quantum entanglement.

Have you actually read this article??
It suggest nothing of the sort.

In regard to Evan's post about my point with the Planck scale and dark matter, there's another article that aims to marry the two, and this is besides the fact I was presuming dark matter and dark energy is not in violation of the Planck scale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269302020026.

Looking at the abstract you quote, it does not support your statement “It was considered necessary to "consider" the idea of dark energy and dark matter to explain the Planck scale energy equations on the universal realm.” as @evan_au explained.
I will get a copy of the paper, but at first sight it doesn’t “aim to marry the 2” it looks like they are renormalising a scalar field at Planck mass which is very different.

[opportunity]

Understood Colin. I failed to mention this article (been a bit busy) as a pre-idea to the one I presented: http://news.mit.edu/2017/loophole-bells-inequality-starlight-0207

The article raises the suggestion light from stars 600 light years away are in quantum entanglement.

Have you actually read this article??
It suggest nothing of the sort.

In regard to Evan's post about my point with the Planck scale and dark matter, there's another article that aims to marry the two, and this is besides the fact I was presuming dark matter and dark energy is not in violation of the Planck scale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269302020026.

Looking at the abstract you quote, it does not support your statement “It was considered necessary to "consider" the idea of dark energy and dark matter to explain the Planck scale energy equations on the universal realm.” as @evan_au explained.
I will get a copy of the paper, but at first sight it doesn’t “aim to marry the 2” it looks like they are renormalising a scalar field at Planck mass which is very different.

Yes, I've read the article. To me though photons in quantum entanglement from a distant star to us would also be in quantum entanglement on other stars (albeit as distinct couples on each star system). I was thinking, and this wasn't spelt out in the paper (and so belongs in new theories, I agree, and apologies for merely presenting the idea in one reply), that if quantum entanglement is happening everywhere, it could be a universal thing, as I also have a prejudice with the Fibonacci sequence, a repeating patter (type-thing), so although I hadn't said it, I was merely just throwing the idea out there without formally considering a new theory, just considering if mainstream physics had any such notions.

The second paper, as I said, I'm presuming the dark energy and dark matter is not in violation "anyway" with previously built ideas in science such as the Planck scale. Am I right in presuming that? Apologies if I'm not.

[Colin2B]

@

Yes, I've read the article. To me though photons in quantum entanglement from a distant star .....

What photons in “quantum entanglement from a distant star “??
Read the article:
“University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, set up a source to produce highly entangled pairs of photons on the roof of a university laboratory in Vienna. In each experimental run, they shot the entangled photons out in opposite directions, toward detectors located in buildings several city blocks away — the Austrian National Bank and a second university building.”
They created the entangled photons here on earth. As the article explains the starlight was used as a random number generator to tell them when to look at them, a sort of double blind trial.

You really can’t go misquoting articles just to support your ideas. You need to study the articles and really understand what they are saying rather than jump to conclusions from headlines.

[opportunity]

@

Yes, I've read the article. To me though photons in quantum entanglement from a distant star .....

What photons in “quantum entanglement from a distant star “??
Read the article:
“University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, set up a source to produce highly entangled pairs of photons on the roof of a university laboratory in Vienna. In each experimental run, they shot the entangled photons out in opposite directions, toward detectors located in buildings several city blocks away — the Austrian National Bank and a second university building.”
They created the entangled photons here on earth. As the article explains the starlight was used as a random number generator to tell them when to look at them, a sort of double blind trial.

You really can’t go misquoting articles just to support your ideas. You need to study the articles and really understand what they are saying rather than jump to conclusions from headlines.

I'm sorry, but I seem to have been misinterpreted here. I said groupings of photons from stars such and such far away are registered in quantum entanglement. Then I said the same would be true for locations on other stars. Am I still misinterpreted there? Then I referenced  the idea of patterns repeating themselves, the idea of quantum-entanglement, how this could be a universal. I know what I read and I know how it reads. And I know the next step idea I was suggesting.

The starlight from a star provides photons in quantum entanglement. Then I suggested the same would be true for any other source in the universe from that source other than our own. "Then" I suggested quantum entanglement would appear to be a universal feature, not localised to our own labs.

Let me be more precise, the star in question provided photons in quantum entanglement. Now relate that with other references, "everywhere", other than the lab these results came through to. It's a big concept, like a universal theme, right?

Or....correct me if I am wrong, this star in question is unique? I'm not the one misquoting or jumping to conclusions, and I hope my answers have demonstrated that.

Correct me if I am wrong also, "producing" entangled photons "using" the light from a distant star, from a source "here". So quantum entanglement is endemic to labs with this device? Why else would it be suggested why Bell's inequality appeared to be breached with their results? I have read the article, and I have not misread it.

[Colin2B]

I'm sorry, but I seem to have been misinterpreted here.

I don’t believe so. You said:

The article raises the suggestion light from stars 600 light years away are in quantum entanglement.

But the article doesn’t say that.

You reinforce that statement with:

Let me be more precise, the star in question provided photons in quantum entanglement.

The star in question was not used as a source of entangled photons, neither is it suggested in the article that stars do so.

The starlight was used as described in the article:
“proposed an experiment to use ancient photons from astronomical sources such as stars or quasars as “cosmic setting generators,” rather than random number generators” - not as the source of entangled photons.

As I described in the previous post the entangled photons were generated here on earth.

The star based random measurement gets over some of the objections to experimental setups by using a loophole in Bell’s inequality as explained very clearly in the article:
“The freedom-of-choice loophole refers to the idea that experimenters have total freedom in choosing their experimental setup, from the types of particles to entangle, to the measurements they choose to make on those particles. But what if there were some other factors or hidden variables correlated with the experimental setup, making the results appear to be quantumly entangled, when in fact they were the result of some nonquantum mechanism?”

I have read the article, and I have not misread it.

So why are you misquoting it?

[opportunity]

I'm sorry, but I seem to have been misinterpreted here.

I don’t believe so. You said:

The article raises the suggestion light from stars 600 light years away are in quantum entanglement.

But the article doesn’t say that.

You reinforce that statement with:

Let me be more precise, the star in question provided photons in quantum entanglement.

The star in question was not used as a source of entangled photons, neither is it suggested in the article that stars do so.

The starlight was used as described in the article:
“proposed an experiment to use ancient photons from astronomical sources such as stars or quasars as “cosmic setting generators,” rather than random number generators” - not as the source of entangled photons.

As I described in the previous post the entangled photons were generated here on earth.

The star based random measurement gets over some of the objections to experimental setups by using a loophole in Bell’s inequality as explained very clearly in the article:
“The freedom-of-choice loophole refers to the idea that experimenters have total freedom in choosing their experimental setup, from the types of particles to entangle, to the measurements they choose to make on those particles. But what if there were some other factors or hidden variables correlated with the experimental setup, making the results appear to be quantumly entangled, when in fact they were the result of some nonquantum mechanism?”

I have read the article, and I have not misread it.

So why are you misquoting it?

So, why did they use the star's light? The freedom of choice loophole? An uncontaminated experiment of light? I understand that. No source for that light, light not having a source, that sort of thing. Maybe the reviewer of the article didn't realise that also. Must be fake news. Granted. I'm with you, I hate fake news and people who fall for fake news, like me......and as you are going to say I misunderstood it....I did, obviously. Topic done here.

[Colin2B]

So, why did they use the star's light?

Are you sure you read the article. I did explain it.

No source for that light, light not having a source, that sort of thing. 

Of course there was a source for the light, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Must be fake news.

Another ridiculous statement.
MIT don’t put out fake news.

Granted. I'm with you, I hate fake news and people who fall for fake news, like me....

No, you are not with me.
You didn’t fall for anything, you just didn’t understand it and claiming it’s fake news is making you look foolish.
You are making a very good try at creating false and misleading information in the main section of the forum. Are you trolling us? It has to stop or you will be limited to new theories and it can’t be true.

[opportunity]

So, why did they use the star's light?

Are you sure you read the article. I did explain it.

No source for that light, light not having a source, that sort of thing. 

Of course there was a source for the light, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Must be fake news.

Another ridiculous statement.
MIT don’t put out fake news.

Granted. I'm with you, I hate fake news and people who fall for fake news, like me....

No, you are not with me.
You didn’t fall for anything, you just didn’t understand it and claiming it’s fake news is making you look foolish.
You are making a very good try at creating false and misleading information in the main section of the forum. Are you trolling us? It has to stop or you will be limited to new theories and it can’t be true.

My goodness. Ok. I think I know the problem.

Besides that, "How can dark energy make the universe travel at a faster than light speed?" That was the question. I guess its common to be berated for just putting a few out ideas there, "even though" there's no great answer available? Science should allow for hypothesis and conjecture. Is there a conclusive answer that states why Dark energy allows for faster than light expansion? I focussed on the question. Other answers were given to say faster than light travel is due to how the universe expanded at the big bang event, yet that wasn't the question asked, they were answers saying the question was improperly considered. The question should though be given merit.

From the wiki page for dark energy:

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1][2] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Further to this:

The evidence for dark energy is indirect but comes from three independent sources:
Distance measurements and their relation to redshift, which suggest the universe has expanded more in the last half of its life.[22]
The theoretical need for a type of additional energy that is not matter or dark matter to form the observationally flat universe (absence of any detectable global curvature).
It can be inferred from measures of large scale wave-patterns of mass density in the universe.

The thing is, dark energy comes into play "after" some time from the initial expansion of the universe from the proposed big bang event.

Here's another article to consider when thinking of dark energy, the planck scale, and fractal scaling (as I tried to suggest earlier):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079062_Quantum_Gravity_and_Dark_Energy_Using_Fractal_Planck_Scaling

[hamdani yusuf]

Due to acceleration of universe's expansion rate, some galaxies with current recession speed faster than the speed of light, previously have subluminal speed.

True; but are the galaxies actually being accelerated? 

There's quite a good explanation here:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/1066-can-two-galaxies-move-away-from-each-other-faster-than-light-intermediate

Let's say X is a star similar to our sun, but located in a galaxy that's moving away at speed of light from milky way. Consider it's just moving along with the space-time it is being in.
Is X's  momentum zero if measured from us? Or is it X's mass times c? Or is it infinity, by considering relativistic mass?

[Colin2B]

My goodness. Ok. I think I know the problem.

I guess its common to be berated for just putting a few out ideas there,

Apparently you don't know the problem.

You are being ‘berated’ for putting out false information.

The correct information is in the article you misquoted, so there is no excuse.

Wake up and don't blame others for problems of your own creation .

[Colin2B]

True; but are the galaxies actually being accelerated? 

There's quite a good explanation here:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/1066-can-two-galaxies-move-away-from-each-other-faster-than-light-intermediate

@Bill S @hamdani yusuf @Azhar Within the article Bill gave is a link to this http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate
In there there is an interesting comment about relative acceleration and changes in Hubble constant.

[EatonEbenezer]

Very informative thread on how can dark energy make the universe expand at faster than light speed as few replies were new for me and increased my knowledge so thanks for making post informative.