[Kryptid]

Does the gravity of galaxies block the in-between-galaxy BBT spatial expansion?

No and there's no reason that it should.

If so, is there Q-E between galaxies?

Almost certainly not, given that those galaxies are billions of years old and therefore billions of years of events have occurred which could easily break any such entanglement.

Why not say that gravity localised in a way that anything that reduces to 0-gravity, like in between galaxies, is expanded owing to the BBT spatial expansion?

Because it technically isn't true. Gravity's strength never falls all the way to zero.

If Q-E surpasses gravity, can you explain the shape of the universe that way?

What does it mean to say that quantum entanglement "surpasses" gravity?

[opportunity (OP)]

That'd be very defensive.

Now, we need to have the evidence.


I've provided links....what's your game....Einstein's "c" theory for Gravity? Newton would still be upset.

Einstein had no theory for gravity, has no theory for gravity (connected to light). Einstein has relativity, mainly an EM theory of reference.

Not many people realise that Einstein has yet to explain gravity.

[Kryptid]

Newton would still be upset.

Who cares? We already know that Newton was wrong about some things.

About the speed of gravity: https://futurism.com/speed-gravity

[opportunity (OP)]

Newton wrong about some things.

Maybe.

Maybe also I'm thinking what Newton was wrong about depends on the BBT?

[opportunity (OP)]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/danish-physicists-claim-to-cast-doubt-on-detection-of-gravitational-waves/

What does that add to the conversation?

[opportunity (OP)]

Does the gravity of galaxies block the in-between-galaxy BBT spatial expansion?

No and there's no reason that it should.

If so, is there Q-E between galaxies?

Almost certainly not, given that those galaxies are billions of years old and therefore billions of years of events have occurred which could easily break any such entanglement.

Why not say that gravity localised in a way that anything that reduces to 0-gravity, like in between galaxies, is expanded owing to the BBT spatial expansion?

Because it technically isn't true. Gravity's strength never falls all the way to zero.

If Q-E surpasses gravity, can you explain the shape of the universe that way?

What does it mean to say that quantum entanglement "surpasses" gravity?

Hang on, Q-E is beyond light speed, its immediate. Correct me if I am wrong.....and it doesn't depend on the expansion of space, as you say.

[opportunity (OP)]

Something tells me that gravity has to be always up with Q-E right.....needs that reference, right?


What are we looking at, exactly, if that's not the case?

[opportunity (OP)]

Gravity as light speed yet non-G particles beyond light speed, in Q-E, spatial expansion.....wow.....that's pot right?

[opportunity (OP)]

Being imaginative is a great thing. Are we beyond ourselves with theory in science today?

[evan_au]

Quantum entanglement is a very fragile thing - the farthest experiment of which I am aware managed to transfer an entangled state from Near Earth Orbit to Earth's surface (ie 600km x 2). To achieve 2 entangled particles I am sure they would have tried millions of times (if not billions of times) - and the entangled connection would have broken down in milliseconds.

However, gravity is really robust - gravity between Sun and Earth has worked reliably for billions of years at a distance of hundreds of millions of km - and it didn't have a success rate of < 10^-6.

Einstein's geometrical interpretation of gravity requires no entangled states.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Experiments_at_Space_Scale

[opportunity (OP)]

So am I with you or against you or still asking the question?

[Kryptid]

Hang on, Q-E is beyond light speed, its immediate. Correct me if I am wrong.....and it doesn't depend on the expansion of space, as you say.

Quantum entanglement can't transmit information.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/danish-physicists-claim-to-cast-doubt-on-detection-of-gravitational-waves/

What does that add to the conversation?

Nothing, because gravitational waves have been detected by multiple detectors at the same time hundreds to thousands of miles apart. That would require an incredible coincidence for a malfunction to not only hit multiple detectors like that all within the span of a single second, but also to produce the same kinds of patterns to make them think they were all observing the same event. The claim in the article is nonsense.

Maybe also I'm thinking what Newton was wrong about depends on the BBT?

Not at all. The theory of special relativity was published all the way back in 1905, whereas the Big Bang theory was developed in 1931.

[opportunity (OP)]

I've read a number of descriptions re. Q-E. I'm unsure as to why Q-E in certain contexts can't represent a mechanism of "either - or", like in computer syntax, and thus a transfer of information. Broadly, in a cluster of particles that are in Q-E with another cluster of particles elsewhere, is there a chance they can be the mirror image of each other, not the same, of course, yet asymmetrically linked re. spin (and the like)?

[Kryptid]

I've read a number of descriptions re. Q-E. I'm unsure as to why Q-E in certain contexts can't represent a mechanism of "either - or", like in computer syntax, and thus a transfer of information. Broadly, in a cluster of particles that are in Q-E with another cluster of particles elsewhere, is there a chance they can be the mirror image of each other, not the same, of course, yet asymmetrically linked re. spin (and the like)?

The reason that you cannot use quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is that you can't force the particles to be in one state or another. You can't make them spin-up or spin-down at will. When you measure one of the particles in an entangled system, there is a certain probability that you will measure it as being either spin-up or spin-down. The other particle in the system may always be in the opposite state to the one you measured, but that doesn't do you any good when it comes to sending information.

[opportunity (OP)]

Yes, I have thought about that. Yet, despite "human" attempts at localised intervention, there would be a type of universal "communication" at play, would there not?

[opportunity (OP)]

Could the entire Q-E set of universal particles, all as one, be akin to a process of resulting in the shape of the universe? Is Q-E that fundamental a thing?

[opportunity (OP)]

Here's a recent paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4568v1.pdf