joigus

I just asked WA, and totally agrees with my calculation. I can PM you solution from "Fram" if you want. Cheers

Analogically, with electric fields? Like a 2-D model of a womhole? I'm intrigued. The thing that's more "analogically" similar to gravitation is electrostatics...

Agreed. Very nice analysis, by the way. What surprises me is not that the entropy is finite, --something Bekenstein and Hawking taught us to think about in terms of QM--, as much as the fact that a classical BH would have an entropy at all, never mind --for the time being-- it being infinite. This is the key to my twice-emphasised: Suppose a civilisation more familiar with both BH's and entropy than our scientist ancestors have been for centuries, and didn't know QM, came to study BH's very much like physicists of the 19th century came to study the black-body radiation. The Planck of this civilisation solves a puzzle for a generation of these physicists. What is their puzzle?: all calculations of a BH's entropy give infinity! Let's call it the ultra-entropic catastrophe, in close analogy to the ultraviolet catastrophe that gave rise to QM. The solution to the puzzle comes in the form of regularising the entropy by means of quantising the action variables on the denominator so that the entropy doesn't come out infinite. That's what the HB formula for the BH seems to be suggesting. Now that's what I find very surprising. What is that infinite entropy that the quantum equation is suggesting if we "classicalise" the BH by doing h-> 0? What are these classical variables, all scrambled up, that QM needs to regularise?

I think you missed the most important part of MigL's post:

This is the point that I've been trying to get across for quite a while. Thank you!!!

OK. This kind of says it all. The same maths work both for locality or non-locality depending on what words you use to describe what you see in those maths. That is what you're saying. So it's just a word that you put on top of the maths that says whether some pattern of evolution is local or non-local. (!!!) Later, as it was just meant to illustrate 1) how words mislead you easily in physics, and 2) your misunderstanding of basic physical concepts. For better or worse, sanity checks take a lot less out of one than insanity checks. And I'm afraid your "current authorities" have a lot much of the first attribute than of the second one. Funny. You said the EPR was "discredited." Now Einstein is summoned here to save the day for the believers of spooky action at a distance. Quite honestly, I don't know what to do with that. Non-locality is a time? Rather, non-locality (or its negation) is an attribute of the evolution law, the law that tells you how the state of a system is updated with time. Before I spend --presumably waste-- more time talking about the meaning of words, let's go for my sanity check: If \( \varphi\left(x,t\right) \) is a scalar (number-valued) field on the real line, \( \dot{\varphi} \) is its time derivative, \( \frac{d\varphi}{dx} \) its spatial derivative, and \( f \) is an arbitrary numeric function, which one of these models is non-local, which one has propagation at finite speed, which one has no propagation at all, and for which one it depends on some non-specified conditions? \[ \dot{\varphi}=f\left(\frac{d}{dx}\right)\varphi \] \[ \dot{\varphi}=f\left(x,t\right) \] \[ \dot{\varphi}=f\left(\varphi\right) \] \[ \dot{\varphi}=\frac{d\varphi}{dx}+f\left(x,t\right) \] You can give that to your authorities if you want.

Mmm. Part of what you say makes sense, and is correct AFAIK. The Schwarzschild radius of an object is essentially its mass. The Compton wavelength of an object is essentially its inverse mass. That's right. Both lengths meet at a particular scale we call Planck's scale. So you could define Planck's mass, eg, as the mass of an object of which its Compton length is the same as its Schwarzschild radius. Those are not ordinary objects, as you can imagine. Something that, in my mind, is extremely peculiar is that Planck's length and time are unfathomably small, while Planck's mass is roughly the size of an amoeba. Another very peculiar thing is that ℏ appears in the denominator of the entropy of a BH. IOW, it acts as a regularising factor for the entropy of a BH. If you make it go to zero, the entropy of the BH becomes infinite... Classically!! Now, there's a clue for you. Another part of what you say, I find more difficult to grasp, let's say. The Compton wavelenght of the universe doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Compton wavelength is relevant in a context of quantum fields. When you try to probe a massive quantum field at scales of order its Compton wavelength, what happens is that, instead of getting a more detailed picture of it, you produce more quanta of the field and its associated anti-particle (2mc2 and beyond). IOW, you enter the regime of pair production. This is known as Klein's paradox --well, the solution to it, to speak more properly. I can't wrap my head around that for the universe!! Creation of universe-antiuniverse pairs? I don't agree with "everything is nothing but velocities and momenta." Spin is a good example. In quantum mechanics you have orbital angular momenta --things like xpy-ypx--, and rotation variables that cannot be expressed in terms of position and momenta (spin, more in particular spin 1/2.) We're talking generalities here, of course, but I think QM is probably the reason why very small BH's and very small regions of BH's cannot be understood in terms of classical GR. And very likely the solution to the problem of singularities is past that frontier.

Let me guess... It's either time for lunch or time to go to sleep. The second one is my present position.

I'm always wary of these terms politicians use to define themselves: Democrats, liberals, neoliberals, progressives... Democracy, liberty, progress. Yeah, sure. Gimme some of that, please. No political party will define themselves as "deceptionists" or "prejudicialists", or "spin-doctoralists." The ad will tell you nothing about what the product is. I suppose the Swedish must eat their pudding before they know what it's really made of.

Thanks both for your thoughts. I prefer to be optimistic, and look at it as the opening of just another niche. The rules and criteria must evolve, in keeping with the new conditions. I would like to set my hopes on this kind of thought: The audience of the talk that I posted, with their questions and observations, --they were all very young-- gave me a glimmer of that hope.

Internet algorithms --probably-- have lead me to an interesting talk. I'm trimming it up to the point where the concept appears: The term appears to be standard enough that there's an article on it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet Several developments on these forums have led me to think there must be a nugget of truth at least about these things. It feels like strong "reservoirs" of opinion, no matter how weakly unsustained by facts or logical consistency, seem to thrive much better than ever before on the Internet. Are these phenomena real? Were you familiar with them?

Sorry, mistake there. They're not pedalling downhill either. But anyway. Feel free to ignore the cyclist's story from here on out. To the point. What exactly is non-locality? Get ready, for my next question is going to be: Which one of these (2-3) mathematical models of evolution is non-local, and why?

No, no. You go. What is non-locality to you? So far, I'm the only one of us that's shown you the calculations and basic principles (conservation laws, observables, quantum evolution, maximally entangled systems) at play, in a way that seems to be to, at least to a certain extent, to the satisfaction/agreement of everybody else but you. You've shown nothing but your unconditional adhesion to a well-known silly and incorrect interpretation that's been running around for decades to the desperation of many renowned physicists. Then I give you a simple problem in classical physics to illustrate how if you try to solve a "paradox" by using words instead of writing down the maths, you can be easily mislead. You don't even understand that simple problem (the cyclists are not pedalling downhill; rather, they're falling downhill, etc.) You misinterpret every single thing I say. That was designed as a test for your attention span. And the key to why you misinterpret the physics is in your own words: (My emphasis.) It takes a lot more than a quick view of the literature to understand physics. So now I think it's your turn. What is non-locality? Be careful, because physicists use this term in loosely overlapping senses sometimes, and it's necessary to tread carefully. This is not something that you will be able to sort out by googling it up in a couple of minutes.

OK. No problem. Trying to be cautious here, I wouldn't say it's necessarily just an artifac. But it's not telling you anything that's not already implied by the theory you're working with. Could it be giving you a clue about something? Perhaps. I don't think that's the case, and the reason is quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics tells us it's rather an area that's important. In its most elaborate version this has come to be known as the holographic principle. The two fundamental universal constants in GR are G and c. You solve the equations for a particularly simple case, and it tells you that at r=2GM/c2 something peculiar happens. You call this radius associated with a BH of mass M its Schwarzschild radius. Now you consider different M's and divide them by their corresponding RSchwarzschild. It gives you always the same ratio, which is a universal constant. What else could it give you? The Schwarschild radius of any M is proportional to that M, and the constant of proportionality is a universal constant. There's a similar situation with quantum field theory. There, what you have is \( \hbar \) and c. For any object of mass m it gives you a characteristic length, called the Compton wavelength, which is, \[ \frac{\hbar}{mc} \] It does play a special role in the theory. But the fact that the product of an object's mass times its Compton length gives you always the same value, does not necessarily tell you anything that's not already implied by the theory. When you try to put together quantum field theory and GR, at least on dimensional grounds, you do obtain a clue that the really deep quantity is not a length, but an area. I suppose what I'm trying to say is: The problem with dimensional analysis is that there is no unique way to interpret one of these "coincidences." I'm a bit tired now. I need some sleep.

This reminds me of an old debate I had with someone who asked me if/why a cyclist who is more massive than another has an advantage when going downhill. I said he does. "Is it not true that the acceleration of the cyclist does not depend on how massive he is? So both the massive, and the less massive cyclists would experience the same acceleration." "Yes", I said. "For cyclists falling downhill on a frictionless slope, that's true. But you're forgetting friction." "But is it not true that the friction coefficient does not depend on the cyclist's mass either? "Errr... sure." I said. If you listen to the argument like that, in words, it sounds like he was right. But, Because he couln't be bothered with writing a simple equation, he was incapable of understanding why I was right. In the first case, the acceleration is the same because the force is proportional to the mass. In the second case --with friction-- the force of gravity is still proportional to the mass --necessary for acceleration to be the same in the 1st case--, while the force of friction is not. That's why the acceleration is different. The things that are independent of mass are different things. The problem is, if you just follow the words, you're incapable of understanding the reasoning. Words in physics, by themselves, are very deceptive. If the probability amplitude, with its correlations born in it, can be written with the spatial terms factored out, it's precisely because it doesn't matter where they are as long as we don't measure spin. The spin structure of the state was the same when the particles were together. It's like the person in my story. He was puzzled. We're saying the same thing! Yes, but you're interpreting incorrectly, and drawing wrong conclusions! Is that any better?

I don't have glitter, but I'll try my best: Now that I've learned the magic words?: I'm out.

I was. I said "probably," plus I didn't say Einstein was misquoted this time. I just said he's often misquoted. Probably more than anybody else. I'm making room for the possibility that Solomon communicated telepathically with Einstein, or knew him personally.

Here. Let me be helpful. You need to explain, not only your idea but, based on your idea, why all previous experiments to detect an aether have failed. Lorentz invariance is tightly packed with CPT invariance in quantum field theory, as Markus told you. You can't have one without the other. Are you proposing to give up CPT? So no, it's not "for no reason." And I woudn't dare applying an adjective to you. Is that clear enough?

From, https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

If you mean call you to task for ignoring the rules of the forum, yes.

Maybe that's what's in order. Or maybe a diagram will be necessary to explain this to the author.

OK. I see the first try didn't hit the target. Could you answer to any of @Markus Hanke's objections to your idea? Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

Another WAG. Could you answer to any of @Markus Hanke's objections to your idea? Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

No, they're not based on EPR. EPR published their paper hoping it would settle the question. They thought quantum mechanics is incomplete. Murray Gell-Mann thought otherwise. It's not discredited. EPR was conceived to coin a concept that would be able to discern if quantum mechanics was right or he --and other critics-- were right. Non-locality is not a long-established reality. It's sometimes actually used --wrongly, because many people do not understand what it means-- to discredit new ideas on the grounds that they would be non-local. Then you certainly don't understand the question. \( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle -\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle \right) \) independently of the space-time factor of the state. In fact, the space-time factor of the state is completely omitted. Don't you find that peculiar? OK. Let me stop you right there, because it is plainly obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics here. Quantum particles have no identity. They are indistinguishable, and they are in a way much more profound than macroscopic objects can be made extremely difficult to tell apart. Not even Nature "knows" which electron is which. There is no "which electron." They're just instantiations of a quantum field. It's actually more profound than instances of a computer program, for example, which have a process tag and a time stamp. Electrons have no tags. GHZ in its original form is about three particles, and the GHZ state is \( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle -\left|\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle \right) \). The observable to measure here is \( \sigma_{x}\left(1\right)\sigma_{x}\left(2\right)\sigma_{x}\left(3\right) \). You can extend that to more than three particles, and I'm sure people have been busying themselves doing that. But again, there is no mystery but the mystery of quantum mechanical correlations. It all comes from a local conservation law, which is conservation of angular momentum. In this case, spin angular momentum. The GHZ observable is a diagonal (eigenvale-to-eigenvalue) function of total x-component of angular momentum, which is locally conserved. A lot of people are still confused about this? Sure.

Good job! Poor old late Einstein is falsely quoted more than anobody else in science, probably.