[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

A lot of time has passed and there have been many events that have kept me away from posting and adding to my ISU view of cosmology. I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting ...


29904,29979,

[Origin]

I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting ...

I hope not, you are basically writing a blog that is pseudoscience and just taking up space in a science forum.
I guess I will put this thread on ignore and not be bothered by it.  Have a good life and enjoy your number of views.

[Halc]

I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting

Origin seems right. All evidence suggests that your sole purpose in posting is to watch the count of the number of google bots that note each post. You seem to live for the number and nothing else. It is an obsession to the point of being compelled to put the number at the bottom of each post to track its progress.

As for the title of this topic, I didn't read it all, but I didn't actually find anywhere that attempted to convey what 'they' are saying about quantum gravity.

Just to pick a random post from 5 years ago:

That rate that quantum gravity functions (the strength of QG) is governed by the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of the local environment.

This is readily falsifiable. Gravitational time dilation has nothing to do with gravitational waves nor to do with the strength of the local field.
For instance, a Schwarzschild black hole generates zero gravitational waves, and yet time gets heap-plenty dilated at points near it. Secondly, time is more gravitationally dilated on the surface of Mercury than on Earth despite the local field strength being under 40% of that of Earth.

you can jump higher on the moon, because the force of gravity is lower on the moon, but the cause of the difference in the strength of quantum gravity on the Moon vs on Earth (higher G-wave at the surface of the earth than on the moon) is explained by the mechanics of the quantum gravity solution of the ISU model.

No. You can jump higher because the strength of the field is lower there. This is explained by Newtonian physics, and has nothing to do with quantum anything.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting

Origin seems right. All evidence suggests that your sole purpose in posting is to watch the count of the number of google bots that note each post. You seem to live for the number and nothing else. It is an obsession to the point of being compelled to put the number at the bottom of each post to track its progress.

As for the title of this topic, I didn't read it all, but I didn't actually find anywhere that attempted to convey what 'they' are saying about quantum gravity.

Closing the thread would suit me. It wasn't a good idea to restart it, shrug.

[Zer0]

It's not the ' Holding On ' that always makes Us stronger in life...

Sometimes, it's the ' Letting go ' .

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Strange you should mention letting go ... it brings to mind entangled particles. They might act as single systems instead of distinct objects. Does anyone think multiple big bangs (imagined throughout this thread) could be entangled? Two big bangs ultimately causing gravitational waves that eventually overlap, ... would the big bangs be considered to be entangled, i.e. not signaling faster than light events?


30420

[Halc]

causing gravitational waves that eventually overlap

Any kind of waves from multiple sources will (if close enough) eventually overlap.

would the big bangs be considered to be entangled, i.e. not signaling faster than light events?

Entanglement isn't 'signalling faster than light'. It's a correlation of quantum measurements. It is unclear how to take a quantum measurement of something as classical as a big bang, and how one would expect to measure a different big bang in such a way that a correlation could be noted or not.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

causing gravitational waves that eventually overlap

Any kind of waves from multiple sources will (if close enough) eventually overlap.

would the big bangs be considered to be entangled, i.e. not signaling faster than light events?

Entanglement isn't 'signalling faster than light'. It's a correlation of quantum measurements. It is unclear how to take a quantum measurement of something as classical as a big bang, and how one would expect to measure a different big bang in such a way that a correlation could be noted or not.

True. The discussions on the topic of quantum mechanics do bring up the term "non-locality" where a system exists in two different parts, i.e. in two places in the universe at the same time. I think entanglement implies that entangled particles can be separated and yet function as a single system.


30467,

[Zer0]

Doesn't Inflation break Entanglement?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Doesn't Inflation break Entanglement?

While we wait for a knowledgeable answer, my supposition is that it could. If one of two entangled particles is somehow impacted by a force or an event, and the other is not, then entanglement would seem to have failed.

[Halc]

do bring up the term "non-locality" where a system exists in two different parts, i.e. in two places in the universe at the same time.

All systems (anything consisting of more than one fundamental thing) exist in different places at once. Non-locality doesn't refer to that, it refers to cause and effect happening faster than c, or reverse causality, etc.

I think entanglement implies that entangled particles can be separated and yet function as a single system.

Entangled particles exhibit correlations between measurements. They don't function as a system.

Doesn't Inflation break Entanglement?

The inflation epoch happened before there were particles to entangle, so I'm not sure there can be a meaningful answer to it.