interested

Thank you all for the responses, I particularly liked the black hole water fall analogy, but it left me wondering what happens when the black hole is full of space?. Space being made up of quantum fluctuations. Which lead to a line of speculation, which I think is mostly correct, and could be derived by a politician trying to please all sides, rather than a scientist trying to prove one way is the only way. Sticking with the KISS principle. My speculation is everyone may be mostly correct, but are explaining the observed "effects" in different ways. All claiming the "cause" of the "effect" is something different ie dark matter quantum foam, fluid space etc etc. Quantum fluctuations or foam permeate all of space and exist temporarily as virtual particles. Dark matter is not detectable in space but is inferred to exist. Virtual particles exist and on average have particle like effects. Could virtual particles Quantum foam or quantum fluctuations existing in space be the elusive dark matter. Virtual particles do on average exist and on average through out the universe will have an average mass, could virtual particles existing in space be the elusive Dark Matter. Am I right in thinking that Dark matter and Quantum fluctuations, or Quantum foam, could be the same thing but explained differently.? To answer my first question the black hole does not get full of space and overflow, because space is absorbed by the matter inside the black hole and disapears. Quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist are driven out of existence in contact with matter inside the black hole.

Can you narrow it down a bit. Some of those mentioned were assuming smooth space, others were trying to agree with dark matter.

Due to the lack of answers received ref my questions, I made some guesses, hoping to gain a better response. I am not going to argue in favour of the big bang or zero energy universe. I was just asking questions trying to get sensible answers not an invitation to argue.

Thanks for the responses Strange and Beecee, having had a night to muse over your responses, and invoking both Occams razor, and the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) ,just in case I am, and having read the links but not all the sub links to your responses. I think it is safe to assume that at least some of those that propose dark matter does not exist, are not fools and Einstein may be partly wrong. I also think it is safe to assume that gravity affects light causing gravitational lensing. I also think it is safe to assume the distortion or stretching of space causes gravity, and the distortion or expansion of space causes a repulsion effect (cosmological constant) Also assuming dark matter does not exist, the above still holds true This then leads to a mixture of ideas being presented in Stranges threads, I am going to reject those ideas that try to support a smooth space and dark matter as it is possible it does not exist. Do any theories agree with the following amalgamation of ideas gleaned from Stranges links this forum and various other websites?. Bearing in mind wave fluctuations permeate all of space ( Mordreds thread on what space is). The super fluid idea of space does not restrict the movement of space or fluctuations in the density or distortion of space (gravity), if this fluid is a quantum field of wave fluctuations (Mordred again) without which space does not exist. When these quantum fluctuations are lumped together they can be viewed as a fluid permeating all of space. Space is not stationery or smooth it is dynamic and moving like any other fluid. This movement in space could cause the lensing effect independent of mass. ie Galaxies swirling around in space will if space is viewed as a fluid cause space around them to move. (Take a good glass of wine and swirl it around hold it to the light and you will see a lensing effect (if you drink a few of the swirling glasses of wine the lensing effect should increase)). If space is viewed as a fluid, like any other fluid swirling around it will cause fluid adjacent to it to move, causing compression or stretching ie distorting it, causing variations in gravity. When a galaxy moves through space, if space is fluid there is nothing to stop it swirling around once the galaxy has passed. Gravitational lensing could be caused by a a historic event in space still distorting the space an event occurred in. etc etc Does any one have a theory that could replace relativity that does not include dark matter. Could quantum fluctuations result in an expansion of space and mirror the cosmological constant in einsteins equations.

I fully appreciate Newtons Equations are still valid in most circumstances and Einsteins are in others. Apart from perhaps being called an uneducated idiot for asking a question, the question still stands. If dark matter does not exist what are the options. An after thought, If an idiot is educated does that make that person an educated idiot, rather than an uneducated idiot? There are lots of stupid educated people in this world and a lot of clever none educated people. ?

Sorry I have had a long night 8 till 8. Are you saying the big bang or the zero energy universes are just hypothesis. Or are you saying my answer only applies to the zero energy universe originating at around about zero kelvin. Quantum fluctuations are the origins off all matter according to both theories, are you denying this? All quantum fluctuations appear as entangled particle pairs. At very low temperature entanglement lasts longer. At a high temperature as in the big bang expansion of space, particles would not be entangled, or would at least mainly to have decohered for any explosion to happen. Virtual particle pairs emit no radiation as they go out of existence, in the absence of any good answers this lead me to believe they must exactly cancel out the wave functions of the opposing entangled particle, regardless of any Heisenberg uncertainty principle. With none entangled particle pairs the wave functions do not cancel and result in the release of radiation and a possible explosion (perhaps FRB's). When a virtual particle pair appear out of the vacuum of space, (sorry mordred wave functions), they are exact opposites and exactly cancel each other out when they come back together. If they survive longer at very low temperature and are disturbed by other virtual particles, they could decohere and phase shift, therefore no longer cancelling out. When they are brought back together they release radiation. Thinking of an analogy with sound E = 0 when two waves in exact anti-phase to each other collide, when they are phase shifted varying levels of energy still exists, like background noise or radiation. Virtual particles pairs have a total energy of zero when brought back together. Once decohered they are no longer exact opposites and result in radiation like particle anti particle pairs. I tried asking a question above ref entangled electrons and positrons to see if radiation was given off or not, I have come to the conclusion it is not. I have asked various questions on this thread and have not received answers to all of them, so have used the internet and found answers to my questions, if you disagree with my conclusions please tell me why, they are wrong.

The outer edges of the galaxies I understand are not moving as they should without dark matter, so dark matter is introduced to make relativity work. The link I posted above claims not to need dark matter to explain gravitational lensing. There are many theories out there, that do not need dark matter, I am trying to find out which are the best to read. If space is full of entangled virtual particles or quantum fluctuations, like in a holographic universe or any one of the other theories out there. Outer space in none stretched space would be more dense, than stretched space at the centre of galaxies, if I read it correctly. Without attempting to use maths or fluid dynamics, could planets in more dense space have higher gravitational fields than those in less dense space giving the appearance of dark matter, due to them orbiting in more dense space.

The big bang is supposed to start with a quantum fluctuation resulting in a very hot expansion of the universe. The zero energy universe starts with both positive and negative energy out of quantum fluctuations. All the matter in the universe started out from one or multiple quantum fluctuations which ever way you look at it. Do you think there is an alternative that does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Dark matter is theorized to be the most abundant substance in the universe. If there is no dark matter is relativity wrong? If relativity is wrong what other theories might be valid? I understand various modern theories do not need dark matter to explain the movement of the outer planets, does anyone have a inside view regarding which alternative to relativity is the best option, in the event that dark matter is not detected? This is one link there are hundreds. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03034.pdf

I guess there will be no answer to the above paradoxial question. The following link is on photon entanglement, https://phys.org/news/2017-09-wavelengths-entangled-photons-telecommunications.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

I understand Entanglement of field excitations (particles) is less likely to occur at higher temperatures or near any matter or photons that would cause disturbances breaking the entanglement of entangled field excitations resulting in a shorter life time of virtual particles (field excitations that never had enough energy to be a particle in its own right) Are quantum fluctuations resulting in field excitations (real particles) more likely to occur at near absolute zero in the vacuum of space, or near matter or in hot environments. Entangled Particles in a hot environment are more likely to decohere than at near absolute zero.

Thanks

Big Businesses the media and none elected lobby groups controlling political decisions, has to come high on the list. The media not just in the USA and reporting of world events appears biased leaving people with one sided world views, unless people check what is being reported, they will invariably ignorant of any alternative truth. I stumbled across this, this morning giving a slightly different view of the Korean problem https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_asia14.htm . with a load of other mumbo jumbo. America may have provoked the Koreans to behave the way they do. Warfare is big business in the USA, could the weapons companies be trying to provoke a war? What global benefit could there be to exterminating a country that does not obey the USA. What did the Iranians do to provoke America other than having a revolution and kicking out the Shah, who was responsible for torture to maintain control. What did the Libyans do to upset America? Does America have the right to police the world, and is it in the interests of the American people to do so? I suspect it is not. You are right this is a big question, but the buck must always stop at the top, the political leaders in America are the problem. They may like to deflect attention outside of their own boundaries and alienate other nations buy manipulating the media, but they are the problem.

Maybe existing theories are just good approximations like Newtons theories before Einstein came along. Maybe the concept of dark energy and dark matter in various new models are obsolete. The theories presented in the link are at this stage in the early days but look interesting.

I understand. Does this apply to the first law of thermodynamics? If so why is it claimed that all matter appeared in a big bang x billion years ago, when in fact the stuff that exploded did not originate at T=0 in a big bang, it must have accumulated before then, with out breaking the first law of thermodynamics. Taking your advice I googled zero energy universe including "arxiv" in the search and hey presto, I have a load of technical stuff on zero energy universes. That will give me hours of reading. It is interesting to read "the positive energy from mass and motion of the observed matter in the Universe exceeds in magnitude the negative energy from gravity, the Universe must contain another form of matter whose energy is negative. This form, which cannot be composed from particles, may be the observed dark matter". This is just one of the links I have to read on night shift next week. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6977.pdf Could decohered entangled quantum particles be the original plasma of Anti matter and matter particles in the universe that resulted in a big bang.? I am going to carry on looking at this, but would appreciate any hints in the correct direction.

Thanks +1 heres the pdf. It is an interesting analysis, only stretching my mathematical abilities a little. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2611.pdf In this paper we consider the decay of quantum entanglement, quantified by the concurrence, of a pair of two-level systems each of which is interacting with a reservoir at finite temperature T. For a broad class of initially entangled states, we demonstrate that the system always becomes disentangled in a finite time i.e. “entanglement sudden death” (ESD) occurs. This class includes all states which previously had been found to have long-lived entanglement in zero temperature reservoirs. Does anyone happen to have a more detailed overview of the zero energy universe concept. ? E= 0 = mc2 - pV ie Can mass be viewed as -ve energy and entanglement and radio waves etc as +ve energy?

Does any one have access to the following article https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012117 "We consider the decay of quantum entanglement quantified by the concurrence of a pair of two-level systems, each of which is interacting with a reservoir at finite temperature T. For a broad class of initially entangled states, we demonstrate that the system always becomes disentangled in a finite time, i.e., “entanglement sudden death” occurs. This class includes all states which previously had been found to have long-lived entanglement in zero-temperature reservoirs. Our general result is illustrated by an example." I am particularly interested in the possible entanglement of particles before any big bangs at around 0kelvin, ie the first quantum fluctuations, which produced positive energy and negative energy which resulted in the universe we have today. +1 -1 +etc - etc = 0 energy and complies with the first law of thermodynamics, the big bang does not comply with the first law of thermodynamics! I note on religious forums the big bang and the first law of thermodynamics is cited for evidence of god, for me this is nonsense, if there is a god we are all part of it, if not then there is no god and the religious science forums are deluding themselves yet again. Why does this science forum have a religious section, are members trying to support religious beliefs? Is this a religious forum? Itoero +1 for the interest

Loads, but would require a speculative thread to be started because I think it may be pure speculation, and I do not argue. I have to work, so do not have much time to spend studying everything but having read Mordreds what space is thread, and a lot of other stuff on other science forums. Various on links on the 2nd law of thermodynamics having been broken at near absolute zero. And finally a Zero energy universe theory, which in effect does not break the first law of thermodynamics. The early universe came from nothing with quantum fluctuations creating both positive energy and negative energy which sum to zero, etc. When positive energy virtual particles come into existence they are normally instantly absorbed by the negative energy, but at around absolute zero can survive long enough to separate from the negative energy. the negative energy could be the energy required for entanglement. A zero energy beginning of the universe in no way disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics and still allows for a big bang, and every one is happy.

Ok forget the above questions I used google and found answers to my questions, except quantum particle behaviour around 0kelvin. Virtual particles according to some websites are all entangled and will last longer at almost 0kelvin than they would at room temperature. Virtual particles at this temperature can become real etc. I suspect google is my best source of information on quantum entanglement of particles at 0 kelvin. Can anyone string me along, show other wise and make my day? Thanks for the input.

I read migls explanation some time ago. thanks again Swansont : I have read the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated at the quantum level, so I assume you are talking about not being able to violate the first law of thermodynamics, which states energy cant be created or destroyed. On some websites discussing this they talk about the universe having a net energy of zero. Gravity being a one form of negative energy. Strange: Are you just talking about the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe being driven by dark energy?. Does a dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. What I was trying to ask above and failed to get an answer on could the energy entangling two particles be a form of -ve energy, that would absorb any radiation given off by virtual particles annihilating? Can an electron and positron become entangled, and if so would they still give of gamma rays on destruction? I am correct in thinking if negative energy exists, in the form of gravity or some thing out in space, the universe could still have a net energy of zero, without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

From the following link http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb647;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print And later he recalled his impatience with the naive story element in The Firebird, those portions of the scenario that had corresponded with the more strictly narrative, pantomime sections of the dance. After the 1919 concert suite he preferred this abridged version to the original ballet.[5] All of which is not to deny, in the case of The Rite or, indeed, any of the ballets, the intimacy of Stravinsky's contact with the scenario and its stage action, both before and during actual composition. In a letter to Roerich dated September 26, 1911, apparently written just after he had begun to compose, Stravinsky writes about a passage from the "Augurs of Spring": "The music is coming out very fresh and new. The picture of the old woman in a squirrel fur sticks in my mind. She is constantly before my eyes as I compose the 'Divination with Twigs': I see her run-

Beecee posted the following link on can matter come from nothing. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html and quoted the following from the link. "Quantum Fluctuations : The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, doeshappen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur)". " Is it forbidden via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or other law that, on occasion energy is not payed back, resulting in an excess of negative energy and real particles? I understand from the beecee link that negative energy may also be known as dark energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy Is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle an acknowledgement of something that happens without fully trying to explain the cause ? Could entangled particles be connected via negative energy? When they come into existence they borrow energy from the background and usually pay it back, but not always, leaving both negative energy and particles in existence?

Why is no radiation given off? any ideas. What is dark energy, is it negative energy, or in any way connected to entanglement? any ideas.

Is your son a programmer perhaps http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/wiki/index.php/ToF-AMS_Analysis_Software Squirrel (ToF-AMS Unit Resolution Analysis Software) Maybe there is a cartoon character, named Igor. Igor was also Dr Frankensteins side kick.

It doesn't look like you are going to get an answer so I will have a bash. Entanglement does not have any detectable energy, although it takes energy to entangle particles. I can not find anything on why entangled particles don't give off energy at the quantum level, is it due to negative energy absorbing the radiation?. I don't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy electron positrons definitely give of radiation when they annihilate. Why don't particle pairs which exist momentarily not give off energy, when they disappear? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation Does any one know exactly what dark energy and dark matter is. It has not been detected, there is lots of speculation on the subject? Could dark energy be viewed as negative energy, or as the result of broken entanglement, which leaves a hole in space perhaps?