MigL

If DM was part of the Standard Model we would expect them to be also. So either the SM is wrong and DM has to be included, or, DM was generated in the initial 'genesis' from the hot dense state of the early universe. Either way, wth few interactions to to slow it down, DM moves at relativistic speeds. Why not ? They do have mass, but their high speeds would require extremely large orbits. Depending on the mass of the sterile neutrino, one could calculate the orbital radius and its magnitude compared to galactic radii. You can look up the amount of neutrinos emitted by the Sun each second, multiply that by the number of stars in a typical galaxy, multiply by the amount of galaxies in the visible universe, and multiply by 13 billion years worth of seconds. Does that seem like a small number to you ? So you know what DM particles are ? You seem to 'know' their mass and typical speeds ...

Black Holes were called 'frozen' stars by Soviet Physicists, like Y Zeldovich, simply because the maths describe time running slower, and finally stopping, or 'freezing', at the Event Horizon ( to a far-off observer ). And also because the term 'black hole' has rude connotations in Russian.

What evidence are you basing your conjectures on ? Are you basing this on incorrect assumptions of 'dark' matter and 'dark' energy ? Dark matter is postulated to be of particle nature, and may have anti-dark matter or supersymmetric partners, but dark energy is possibly a scalar field that permeates the expanding universe. x-posted with Swansont

True. However the universe is an expanding cooling 'body'. The mable has inertia which is affected by gravity, causing the oscillations. Could the universe have the same ?

I suspect neither. Rather, it is on the method used for 'beholding'. Just as the wave or particle nature we behold in QM depends entirely on the experimental set-up, or method of observation. Keep in mind that interpretations are like opinions, only loosely based on the mathematics we are trying to interpret and compare to 'real world' experiences. Also, just like opinions, and other bodily parts, everyone has one. Take them with a 'grain of salt'.

At one time, certain species of neutrinos were considered candidated for 'dark' matter. ( don't know if they still are ) We could then examine the interaction cross-section of neutrinos to see what dark matter would act like. I certainly doesn't clump together to form structures, and easily passes through electromagnetically bound matter.

Since this hasn't gone any farther, maybe I can pose a question or two. If we consider the 'sombrero' potential, and the roll from the centre peak of the hat down into the brim ( false vacuum to true vacuum potential ), to account for the inflationary epoch, as a result of the symmmetry break when the Electroweak dissociated, to what do we attribute the 'rate' of the roll-down ? Did the 'roll' stop when inflation ended, or did it slow down, and continues to account for expansion ? IOW, have reached the true vacuum potential yet or are we still very slowly working towards it ? Further, if you make a real world model of the sombrero potential and use a marble as the universe's potential, you find that the marble oscillates across the brim, before coming to a complete stop at the lowest point. Could the same oscillations be occurring to the universe's potential, and account for periods of increased and decreased expabion rates ? Or, am I reading too much into the model ?

The privileged are always a minority. Unfortunately, in some types of democracies ( yes, you, America ), that minority uses their disproportionate wealth to buy the governance they want; they've usurped the majority ( underprivileged's ) equality of opportunity.

Then why not ask me ? I am allowed to like, or dislike, anyone I so choose, whether it be for the way they cut their hair, their personal hygene, OR, their skin color. Just as I would be allowed to prefer the company of men, if I was gay, over the company of women. However, I am not allowed to treat men and women differently in aspects that affect them, like jobs, voting, and any other social constructs. The same goes for people of different skin colors, different hygene practices ( cultural ), and even haircuts. There are, and should be laws against behaviours that we, as a society, deem repugnant. There can't, and shouldn't be laws against independant/different thought. We are a long way from 'Minority Report'. ( the Tom Cruise movie )

I think it all hinges on how you qualify 'equality'. Some want to see equality of outcome, and that is not like democracy at all, for reasons already mentioned like majority rule. Democracy does, however, give voting people the opportunity to choose their own destiny/governance/laws, and as such, it is equivalent to equality of opportunity. I have always preferred equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, so I am perfectly happy with democracy. ( the only thing better would be me, being appointed emperor )

I like mine slit and roasted. With a glass of wine ...

What actually happens is that the light cone of the infalling object ( Light cone - Wikipedia ) tips towards the gravitational well, and would be on its side after passing through the Event Horizon, with resulting effects on time-like and space-like motion. Pop-sci sensationalizes this as space and time reversing, or, there is only one destination in your future.

You and Phi. And Happy New Year to 'you two'. ( hope the hangover has subsided )

It's a long slog, 25 oages, but I recommend reading this topic in Speculations It is fairly recent ( month ago ) so I really don't want to re-hash the whole discussion, but it is very informative, and brings up the same questions you are considering. Happy New Year.

It's either/or ...

Are you two the same guys who always claim prohibition doesn't work ? Or does that only apply to mood altering substances, but not cigarettes ?

We would give you advice, but it is still illegal in a lot of jurisdictions, and we don't advise on illegal activities 😄 . Best advice I can give is move to Canada.

You are so indecisive 😄 .

Personal preference. All are equally valid. How do you pick a favorite color ?

Can't say I agree with the video, or the conclusions drawn from his paper ( as little as I can understand it ). It seems just another 'interpretation to me, as I don't much care for non-locality or time travel. I am perfectly happy with the 'no local realism' interpretation, where all is probabilities, that, once 'fixed' by interaction/measurement/observation, emerge to what we perceive as 'real'. Maybe it's just personal preference as to what seems less absurd to myself, somewhat like I prefer the 'Copenhagen' interpretation to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation.

Me too. I posted an explanatory link of the blok universe model ( much to Studiot's displeasure, it seems ) only because another poster had misconceptions about where the model is applicable. As with all models, it is not applicable in all circumstances, and I, myself, am not overly fond of it. However, I'm even less fond of the misconceptions that get posted on this forum about it.

Actions can be made illegal, and many are. I, for one, don't wish to live in a world where thoughts and beliefs can be made illegal. Do you ?

Actions affect others; beliefs do not. I wouldn't want to confuse what we are discussing.

Mr W Heisenberg has some thoughts on that, and his principle says "no".

For some reason I could not get this to quote, but Markus' post, in the Crowded Quantum Information thread should be required reading for anyone confused about entanglement ... "Let’s look at this whole quantum entanglement business systematically, because I really don’t think it requires 22 pages of discussion and argument to understand this. It may be counter-intuitive, but it really isn’t that complicated. Suppose you have - to begin with - two completely separate particles, which aren’t part of a composite system; their states are thus entirely separate, and denoted by |A〉,|B〉 Don’t mind the precise meaning of this mathematical notation; it simply denotes two separate particles being in two separate states, where the outcome of measurements are probabilistic, and not in any way correlated at all. No mystery to this thus far. Now let’s take the next step - we combine the two particles into a composite system. The state function of that composite system is then the tensor product of the states of the individual particles, like so: |ψ〉=|A〉⊗|B〉≡|AB〉 Again, don’t mind the precise definition of these mathematical operations; the idea here is simply that our two particles A and B form a composite system. Let’s, for simplicity’s sake, assume that each particle can only have two states, ‘0’ and ‘1’ - the physical meaning of the tensor product above is then that it combines each possible state of one particle with each possible state of the other, so the overall combined system can have four possible states: |00〉,|01〉,|10〉,|11〉 Thus the overall combined state of the particle pair is (I will omit the coefficients here, as the precise probabilities aren’t important): |ψ〉=|00〉+|01〉+|10〉+|11〉 This is an example of a system that is not entangled - the combined state function can be separated into the individual states of the constituents, and all combinations are possible (though not necessarily with equal probability). Non-entangled states are separable into combinations of states of the individual constituent particles - they are tensor products of individual states - which means physically that there are no correlations between outcomes of measurements performed at the constituent particles. If you get state ‘0’ for a measurement on particle A, then you can get either state ‘0’ or state ‘1’ for a measurement on B, and these outcomes are statistically independent from each other. Mathematically, the tensor product makes no reference to the separation of the particles, ie it is not a function of their position, hence neither is the overall combined state. An entangled 2-particle state, on the other hand, looks like this: |ψ〉=12–√(|01〉+|10〉) Notice three things: 1. Compared to the non-entangled state, two of the possible measurement outcomes are missing; the set of possible outcomes is reduced 2. The combined state cannot be uniquely separated into tensor products of individual states; it is non-separable 3. The form of the combined state does not depend on the spatial (or temporal) position of the particles - it is purely a stochastic statement, not a function of spacetime coordinates. What does this physically mean? Because the set of possible measurement outcomes in the overall state is reduced as compared to the unentangled case, there is now a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes - with emphasis being on the term statistical. There are now only two possible combinations, as opposed to four in the unentangled case. This is the defining characteristic of entanglement - it restricts the pool of possible combinations of measurement outcomes, because the overall state cannot be separated, due to there being extra correlations that weren’t present in the unentangled case. This is purely due to the form of the combined wave function - the outcome of individual measurements on each of the constituents is still purely stochastic, and not (!!!) a function of distant coordinates. Because the outcome (statistical probability) of local measurements is not a function of coordinates or any distant states, it is completely meaningless to say that this situation is somehow non-local, or requires any kind of interaction, be it FTL or otherwise. The entire situation is fully about statistics and correlations, which is not the same as a causal interaction; in fact, any interaction between the constituents (including FTL ones) would change the combined wave function and preclude the possibility of there being a statistical correlation while at the same time maintaining the stochastic nature of the outcomes of individual measurements. This is evident in the fact that the entanglement property of the above state function isn’t encoded in any kind of coordinate dependence, but rather in a reduction of terms, ie in a reduced pool of possible outcomes. This hasn’t got anything to do with locality at all, but is purely a statistical phenomenon." Markus Hanke Nov 21 / 22