interested

The calculated zero point energy is far in excess of that required to explain the cosmological constant and dark energy. I do not know science has not got the answer when I ask a question. In general all my questions have been answered on the forum. Often I am seeking clarification that what I am thinking is correct, and as you and others have pointed out on many cases I am often wrong. Thanks for your patience

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole Could somebody point me to any good papers on white holes and additional dimensions. I understand from some papers relativity does not restrict the number of dimensions allowed, The white hole is supposed to form at the other end EPR bridge, in another theoretical universe. Could the other universe not be the one we live in, after all our universe is outside the BH singularity. Could a White hole be driving the expansion of space all around us?

Where did you get that answer from do you have a link ? I guess we might not see it if it were a singularity in normal space time Would a very short burst of light brighter than all the stars in the universe microwave everything If it was connected to all points in space as an undefined dimension could it just appear as quantum fluctuations or as dark matter maybe? Could it absorb the excess of zero point energy around to help explain Dark Energy in terms of zero point energy could it allow non local space time interactions I guess also when I google these questions I will no doubt find some pop science answers to confuse things.

The Bell theory link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Thanks for that, the questions were not formed well. What I was thinking about was a possible parallel between Hawking radiation from a black hole, and the Quantum fluctuations appearing in space, and maybe dark matter, along with the cosmological constant and dark energy. As was pointed out by some one on this forum the theoretical vacuum energy is 10 ^120 times bigger than that required for the cosmological constant or dark energy, either the sums are wrong or something is being missed, What would be the effect of something like a plank sized BH singularity?. Would such a thing have to exist in space time dimension?. Could it radiate quantum fluctuations in space?

You are not missing anything, and as has been pointed out and accepted, most if not all things can be explained via local interactions. (aflip of the coin) . There are however a few discrepancies arising from instantaneous wave function collapse(FTL) as I pointed out in the double slit experiment as mentioned in the paper which swanson disregards. The fact of the matter is that space is not just x,y,z,t space, at the very small scale it is dynamic. A mathematical model of the universe produces a very smooth idealised version of the world. Instantaneous wave collapse(how) space(how many dimensions) is there an extra dimension that may have existed before a big bang, ? @Mordred I do understand functions, and correlation etc, I have an above good understanding of mathematics. I also have a couple of technical degrees to back it up. I read and note most of what you write on the forum, I will now go away and have a read of Bells experiments to see what you are referencing. My degrees are not in physics, nor are they in philosophy so at this stage I am not sure how Bells theoreoms come into my interests. Currently I want to know more about what space is. Is it just space time, does it have extra non spacial dimensions allowing instantaneous wave function collapse, what existed before the big bang (if it ever happened). How is space defined inside a blackhole, how was it defined before a big bang. Could etc etc etc??????

Are they,? Quantum excitations are part of the standard model, Quantum fluctuations are also virtual particles are they quanta. Virtual particles are force carriers used to explain the magnetic field, quantum fluctuations in space are not ascribed any forces except maybe gravity and dark energy. The theoretical graviton is a boson, is it a virtual particle? Does something like Hawking radiation generate real or virtual particles?.

The paper does not agree with what you claim. It states all things can be explained by fields. They are not irrelevant when discussing non locality. I understand given a set of tools to do a calculation, we must use the best one for the job. Newtons equations are more than satisfactory in my work. My grammar is getting worse by the day, I meant to say I am asking questions not attempting to give answers. Would you describe quantum teleportation as a local or non local interaction. The fact that there is no consensus even among people that claim to know their subject suggests that keeping an open mind on the subject is essential. Having read the paper a couple of times I found the explanation ref non locality and the double slit experiment plausible. Not being an expert what cherries have I missed. Before the bigbang or inside a BH space time is not really defined. Non Local Quantum fields must have existed within this undefined region. Clearly space exists outside off or alongside Black holes, could this undefined space containing only fields still exist and maybe cause things like zero pint energy?

Are you a quantum particle person or a quantum field person. The article I posted argues everything can be explained by fields, including non locality, with out the need to refer to particles. By not exactly mainstream what do you mean. Do you agree non locality exists. I am after information and opinions not giving answers. Various earlier responses indicated non locality did not exist and could satisfactorily be explained away with local explanations. I asked if anything else might be better explained via non locality, and then suggested the double slit experiment as an example, and backed it up with the paper you have now read. Did you enjoy the paper ?

It is as I wrote. A field can not be defined locally. The collapse of a field on measurement is instantaneous. Both of which are described in the link I posted above. I also have other short papers all along the same lines. Do you disagree with the paper I posted above. Do you disagree that the double slit experiment and non locality is better explained using QFT than any other extant theory. I know this What is your take on non locality and the double slit experiment? At the end of the day are you a QM person or QFT person or some other?

I was not arguing otherwise, Strange deliberately misunderstood what I wrote, which I thought was quite clear. I suspect it was another attempt at a strawman discussion. Non Locality is best covered I think from a QFT point of view, it even makes sense of the double slit experiment. At what point does QFT fail and need QM to come to the rescue? What part of what I WROTE were you questioning. Does anyone have a good pdf on QFT to hand and perhaps one on QM also?

WTF. They should ultimately agree. So we agree

Einsteins theories of relativity, are field based theories. Quantizing the field does not change the nature of the field. I attempted a little summary above, which I was not sure about, but after reading a little more, fields can not be described locally until they collapse and produce the effect seen in the double slit experriment, the fields can and do pass through both slits in the double slit experiment, they can not be defined locally until they are absorbed and produce Quanta of energy, Of course there are different explanations such as QM etc, however the field is fundamental to all things in the universe at least according to QFT. A field can not be defined locally and entanglement can be described as a non local effect, ie the collapse of the field is instantaneous on detection producing a localized quanta of energy. Two particles act as one entangled particle separated by distance until they are detected, upon which point they decohere and are no longer entangled. The concept of non locality of the field allows all things in the universe to be connected to a certain extent via the underlying field. This concept of connected-ness seems apparent in spin space theories, also in the membrane concept of string theory and even in some religions, pantheism perhaps (sexed up atheism according to dawkins). Whilst things can be explained probalistically with out looking at the underlying cause, fields give an underlying cause, At least that is what I think at the moment. Go ahead change my mind (make my day )

Page 12 of this link https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf IV. THE 2-SLIT EXPERIMENT All things are fields which cannot be described locally until they collapse and give of the energy as quanta (e=hf ) behaving like particles. The boundaries of the fields cannot be defined locally, is a little confusing, is it like saying the fields exist everywhere until detected when they instantly collapse and produce a quantaa of energy on the detector.

It must be my warped sense of humor when faced with bizarre ideas it is easy to take the piss. I think you could be correct, I often feel uncertain after reading several wiki pages especially when mixed up with pop science Thanks for the clarification and additional link.

Are you trying to direct me at pop science articles and nutter theories Here is one on zero point gravity, https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389212025151/1-s2.0-S1875389212025151-main.pdf?_tid=812b323f-a638-488b-abcf-91330c231328&acdnat=1524830042_8a8c50cb625d28ffb9f850780edd1e08 . Also apparently energy is available free from the vacuum and its a government conspiracy why we havent found it yet, WOW. It was the wiki thread you posted that indicates it is infinite, but didnt show how it came to that conclusion.

When looking at QFT the double slit experiment might demonstrate non locality perhaps. How does one define the boundaries of a wave moving towards a double slit, and which gap does it pass through. If any one is interested here is a link I am currently reading((possibly pop science) which is to me very interesting and explains non locality in terms of fields including the double slit experiment. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf I am finding the boundary conditions of the fields a bit of problem to grasp at the moment. Its like they are everywhere all at once and then instantly collapse manifesting them selves as a particle on contact with a receptor.

The quantum foam in space as evidenced by the casimir effect are virtual particles and very short lived, the virtual particles used as exchange particles are way of simply stating the magnetic field is transmitted by virtual photons for instance, without defining the under lying shape of the wave or field causing the effect.

yes agreed, the casimir effect only proves the existence of quantum fluctuations. Thanks for the wiki link ref zero energy, it was very interesting, I should have googled and found it myself, however I did not follow how zero energy is infinite. I will have to read it again. Random thought : Can space be viewed as maintaining an average energy level over a volume of space.? I think I read a few years ago there was a theory based around this, the memory is in the dim and distant past. I will google this myself. Yes, in QFT also. Are the collapse of quantum fluctuations instantaneous. In QFT what are the boundaries of a Quantum fluctuation?

The expansion of the universe Dark energy may be driven by quantum fluctuations. The casimir effect is direct measurable evidence of virtual particles/quantum fluctuations. See stranges link above.

Assuming quantum fluctuations are a result of the underlying field and can be described as field quanta having energy E=hf similar to electrons, positrons etc. Quantum fluctuations appear and disapear all the time, why isnt space full of radition as a result of this apparent continual loss of virtual particles. Could it be that these virtual particles appearing in space are not produced in pairs, but are just the result of fields or waves interacting with each other producing an interference effect., with peaks and troughs. You have mentioned the energy of the vacuum a number of times do you have a link to how it is calculated? There is an imbalance of matter antimatter particles in the universe could it be they are not always produced as pairs, which then annihilate each other. I am not trying to create matter, I just want to know how it could happen, if virtual particles pairs do not appear next to each other, why would they need to annihilate.

Virtual particles pairs are normally entangled. Do they need to appear adjacent to each other, also other virtual particles might appear between virtual particles and move them apart. separated I was wondering if a less expanded space( in the extreme case a singularity) might have more intense quantum fluctuations, appearing as a function of a BB for instance. Accepted, BUT energy cant be created or destroyed, so where did it come from.? The HUP allows quantum fluctuations to appear out of the vacuum of the vastness of space and exist momentarily before disappearing again . I was wondering what would these quantum fluctuations be like at the point of a Big Bang in a more concentrated space, a singularity for instance. Space still has the same amount of energy as it did at the Big Bang, how did it get it? What are the chances of multiple quantum fluctuations all appearing at the exact same space and time, would they appear as actual particles. The energy in the Big Bang must have released more EM radition than any laser ever could. If the EM radition of the BB interacted with virtual particles would real particles apppear perhaps, as per .

I was working around the idea. Can entangled particles be manipulated after entanglement, to produce different results from other entangled particles produced from the same source at a different time that have not been manipulated. What I was looking for was something that can not be explained away easily, that scientists are still unsure about or do not fully understand, non locality that might be worth debating. Basically I was asking the same question as in the OP which has been answered by various people satisfactorily. Is there anything to any of the ideas put about that information is exchanged FTL under any circumstances. Ie after the particle has been entangled can a photon be manipulated to produce an immediate response on the other., which would be spooky

How do you add energy to a virtual particle? Is it possible to compress virtual particles together to form a particleor photon? In a smaller universe would quantum fluctuations in space be more compressed and result in real particles or photons appearing from quantum fluctuations? (kind of BB idea )

An after thought from the links posted above can virtual particles combine to form real particles electrons for instance, which according to field theory spend fleeting moments of their lives as virtual particles.