[guest39538]

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 

The  miracle of  God ........

[Bogie_smiles]

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 

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?

[markwood007788]

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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[jimbobghost]

good on you Colin.

[guest45734]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

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 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.

[guest45734]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

[millyjons]

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