interested

It is possible that gravity is due to entanglement using MOND theory. The thread is meant to be about entanglement. The Big bang was at such a temperature that entanglement I understand is unlikely. I posted this under dark matter but it is also relevant here as it deals with gravity and entanglement and dark matter. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html . Clearly it is not the standard model, and possibly not what people will want to discuss, but at the moment it has me interested, and is related to both the threads I started.

So according to you MOND perhaps should not have been posted on the speculations thread of this science forum. Maybe I should have posted the link under entanglement in the physics section rather than speculations as it seems MOND may be related to entanglement as well, and as we know quantum entanglement albeit spooky is observed fact and not religion. +1

MOnd is not my theory. I suspect the guys developing it are a lot smarter than any one with religious beliefs, although they might believe in ghosts and other religious ideas as well. It took me a few hours to read and re read everything I posted above, you have answered I think without even reading or looking at the content. It is intended to be interesting, open minded to all views and not to offend any ones beliefs, if it does then tough. Whats the polar bear all about? Grrrr

Well spotted, I did consider your very convincing posts on gravitational lensing as evidence for dark matter and you nearly had me convinced. I understand the lensing effects are an observed effect of light being affected as it passses through some galaxies, which possibly have some baryonic matter whizzing about in them, but this is not observed in all galaxies, and all galaxies are affected by this alleged dark matter. Neptune is not dark matter.

I have no fetishes I am aware off, just interests. My thinking was along the lines off entanglement did not exist in a very hot big bang at the start of big bang theory, it could not it was too hot. I was trying to envisage what happened to create a big bang, and lots of heat. Where did the original matter come from, space as we know is very cold, and would allow entangled particle pairs to survive much longer. Where did the original matter come from? Could virtual particles (waves) interact in some way to form actual particles, would they need to appear in pairs, I dont know, thats why I am asking? The zero energy universe seems to allow for matter to appear out of nothing over time, but in pairs of particles I understand. etc

Strange,and other believers in dark matter. I think you are wrong, and I am not going to argue with you about it. The obvious answer is that perhaps Einsteins GR is a bit wrong and Dark matter does not exist. Dark matter comes from a almost religious belief in GR and it most likely does not exist. Believers in GR desperately want it to exist to support their religious beliefs. Various alternative theories on gravity DO NOT need dark matter, these have been mentioned previously on this thread. The following is a Pop science level Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html and A bit more technical level Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf At least with ghosts and ghoulies there are people on the planet that claim to have observed them, with dark matter no one even seen it, or detected it. It is inferred to exist because of the way galaxies move based on a mathematical theory, that does not agree with the observed matter in the universe. If there is something like dark matter in the universe it is likely to be considerably less than currently predicted and is likely to be made up of Baryons, according to wikipedia. Edit And of course if GR is not strictly correct then the following link should give people food for thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology Perhaps a revolution is on the way, or perhaps not.

I think the laws of grammar may have broken down. Thinking about what may have caused a big bang, and where matter comes from, prior to any expansion or contraction of the universe does make sense. Heat is energy it came from somewhere, how was it created in a big bang? Dark matter I understand is at the same temperature as space circa 2.7 kelvin Would the quantum fluctuations theoretically initiating the big bang have consisted of equal amounts of entangled matter and antimatter ?

I know this has to be a stupid question, BUT 1) why cant dark matter just be something none exotic like fine dust particles, or gas? Does it have to be spin 0 neutrons or neutrinos. 2) Would electrically neutral matter and antimatter dust clouds explode? 3) why cant it be a mixture of something like electrons and positrons orbiting each other giving a total spin 0? This might explain the apparent lack of anti matter in the universe. Dark matter seems to be relatively stationary in clumps or on the outside of galaxies it does not appear to give off heat as far as I can find out, and is at the same temperature as the rest of space. This kind of rules out anything hot radioactive or neutrinos, (because they are moving along at almost c), so we are left with cold inert dark matter, dust, ash etc? OR gravity does not work exactly as theorized OR its a mixture of everything, AND there may be multiple types of dark matter.

Could anti helium be a source of dark matter, as a relic from a big bang http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/giant-space-magnet-may-have-trapped-antihelium-raising-idea-lingering-pools-antimatter Can AMS anti-Helium events come from dark matter? Maybe! Adam Coogan1∗ and Stefano Profumo1† 1Department of Physics and Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA We demonstrate that the tentative detection of a few anti-helium events with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on board the International Space Station can in principle be ascribed to the annihilation or decay of Galactic dark matter, when accounting for uncertainties in the coalescence process leading to the formation of anti-nuclei. We show that the predicted antiproton rate, assuming the anti-helium events came from dark matter, is marginally consistent with AMS data, as is the antideuteron rate with current available constraints. We argue that a dark matter origin can be tested with better constraints on the coalescence process, better control of misidentified events, and with future antideuteron data. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.09664.pdf

Then I stumbled across this from glasgow university http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf On the nature of the photon and the electron J.G.Williamsona a University of Glasgow, College of Science & Engineering, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland; ABSTRACT A new theory, describing both light and material particles, is proposed. The experimentally-observed nature of space and time are brought into the theory at the most fundamental level. An equation encompassing the usual free-space Maxwell equations but similar in form to the Dirac equation is proposed. This equation has new kinds of solutions. Propagating, pure-field solutions may have any energy, but the energy transferred must be proportional to the frequency. These are identified with the physical photon. Solutions with a rest-mass term allow any incoming propagating field to merge into re-circulating vortex-like solutions. The minimum energy configuration “rectifies” the oscillating electric field of light into a uni-directional, radial (inward or outward directed) configuration. The resulting apparent external charge may be readily estimated and is found to be of the order of the elementary charge. The spin may, likewise, be calculated, and is found to be half integral, exhibiting a double-covering internal symmetry. Charge is then not a fundamental quantity in the theory - but is a result of the way field folds from a rest-massless bosonic to a rest-massive fermionic configuration. The simplest such charged, fermionic particles are identified with the electron and positron.

Richard Gauthier has written a load of stuff on electrons being helically spinning charged photons, maybe this is relevant https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322004_The_electron_is_a_helically-circulating_spin-12_charged_photon_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength other authors have also written about this as well.

A dark matter galaxy, https://www.space.com/33850-weird-galaxy-is-mostly-dark-matter.html is this not interesting. does anyone know what temperature dark matter is in space, specifically cold dark matter.?

Oops missed that. The following are a coupe of links on photons that I found interesting, and might be worth discussing on how light moves. Method to significantly enhance optical force. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-method-significantly-optical.html#nRlv Gamma rays reach beyond the limit of light https://phys.org/news/2017-10-gamma-rays-limits.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

The laws of thermodynamics apply even to big bangs https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/WIKIPEDIA/Lambda-CDM_model.html . The laws of thermodynamics do not start breaking down until below about 3 kelvin the same temperature as CBR. What temperature is cold dark matter?

The Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions not bosons. Bosons can pass through the same space as other Bosons. If Photons are viewed as wave fluctuations in space whose energy is given by E=hf, then they have wavelength they also have a direction waves on the surface of a pond can pass through each other in different directions unlike ships. Feynman diagrams may give a better idea of what is going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram What sort of field fluctuation in space do you think a magnetic or electric field would look like?

Do flux tubes explain entanglement? https://phys.org/news/2017-10-early-universe-world-three-dimensional.html and matter in the early universe prior to a bang.

Photons are field fluctuations. What field is fluctuating if it is not space? Gravity is a stretching of space, ie a field distortion in space. What field is distorting if it is not space? Wave particle duality is better described as different field fluctuations or distortions of space of one form or another. Photons are directed polarized field fluctuations in the fabric of space, the stretching or fluctuation in space transfers the energy. All things are field fluctuations of one kind or another, including photons, particles, gravity, magnetic fields, everything. At least that is my understanding.

No, that is only for particles with rest mass E=γmc2 Yes, that is correct swansont, I just got done bitching about university websites with false information now google, it is the end I say! The more common way of writing that is E=hf ------------------------------------------- I do not see what the big difficulty people have with wave particle duality. Is a photon not best viewed as a directional wave travelling through space, which stretches and releases space as it goes like a sound wave in water, E = hf is the most useful definition from the above. Gravity stretches space in an omni-directional way, whilst photons stretch it in a mono directional way. They are both the same effect in space one Stationary the other fluctuating.

I suspect yo may be correct, I am going to re read the following two papers to see how they are teasing me, neither are not at noddy level, which is what I am looking for. Extraction of time like entanglement from the quantum vacuum S. Jay Olson∗ and Timothy C. Ralph Department of Physics, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia (Dated: January 14, 2011) Recently, it has been shown that the mass less quantum vacuum state contains entanglement between time like separated regions of space time, in addition to the entanglement between the space like separated regions usually considered. Here, we show that time like entanglement can be extracted from the Minkowski vacuum and converted into ordinary entanglement between two inertial, two state detectors at the same spatial location — one coupled to the field in the past and the other coupled to the field in the future. The procedure used here demonstrates a clear time correlation as a requirement for extraction, e.g. if the past detector was active at a quarter to 12:00, then the future detector must wait to become active at precisely a quarter past 12:00 in order to achieve entanglement. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2565.pdf Quantum Entanglement in Time Marcin Nowakowski∗ Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland and National Quantum Information Center of Gdansk, Andersa 27, 81-824 Sopot, Poland In this paper we present a concept of quantum entanglement in time in a context of entangled consistent histories. These considerations are supported by presentation of necessary tools closely related to those acting on a space of spatial multipartite quantum states. We show that in similarity to monogamy of quantum entanglement in space, quantum entanglement in time is also endowed with this property for a particular history. Basing on these observations, we discuss further bounding of temporal correlations and derive a https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08116.pdf I am pretty sure it isnt time travel as in star trek, but it could be teleporting information into the future or past maybe? Teleportation is not something we have looked at yet although you mentioned it much earlier on on this thread. Some light reading from wikipedia on teleportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

Scientists had known where lighter elements were synthesized — most hydrogen and helium came from the Big Bang, and elements up to iron on the periodic table are mostly forged in the cores of stars. However, the origin of half of the elements heavier than iron has been uncertain. These new findings provided the first concrete proof that such mergers are the birthplaces of half of the universe's elements that are heavier than iron, Kasliwal said. If neutron stars only produce half of the heavier elements, where do the rest come from, black holes exploding perhaps?

I disagree there is no mention of snake oil in the link, also there is tonnes of stuff on this subject if you care to google it.

Thanks to the power of google, there is loads of stuff on time travel and entanglement, sadly most of it is over my head https://www.wired.com/2016/01/quantum-links-in-time-and-space-may-form-the-universes-foundation/ Does anyone have anything verging on entanglement in time for dummies? My simplified speculation is that all points in space can be entangled via a 4th dimension including time.

The links show a gravitational wave was received first followed by gamma rays then various other waves at reducing energy levels, which was due to large neutron star collisions not black holes. The links also show evidence for heavier elements than iron being produced including gold and uranium, is this not the most interesting thing. Black holes colliding would only give off gravitational waves and perhaps gamma rays, any matter formed that could be detected would have to escape the event horizon. In these observations lots of heavy elements have been detected, which would not have been detected if they were black holes.

A single photon reveals quantum entanglement of 16 million atoms https://phys.org/news/2017-10-photon-reveals-quantum-entanglement-million.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter Does anyone have an opinion or information on entanglement of particles separated by time???????????????????????? If time and space represent four dimensions how is time affected by entanglement???????????????????

Here is more of the same, neutron star collisions. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-gold-gravitational-sighting.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter https://phys.org/news/2017-10-astronomers-cosmic-gold-precious-metals.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter Supernovae are not be the source of metals heavier than iron after all, are neutron star collisions enough to explain all the heavier elements?