Jump to content

Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)


Itoero
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I may...

According to accepted physics theory, Black holes can and do explode.
A BH has entropy and therefore a temperature. If its temperature exceeds that of surrounding space ( 2.7 deg ) then the Hawking mechanism will transform one of a virtual particle pair into a real particle, BUT, at the expense of the BH's mass-energy, so that, slowly the BH evaporates. This mechanism has been described in pop science as the capturing of one virtual particle by the event horizon ( very simplistic ), to tunneling 'through' the event horizon, and is in effect, a 'shotgun marriage' of GR and QFT.
As the BH gets smaller and smaller ( and its temperature/radiation increases dramatically ), it reaches the point where it can shed its event horizon and explode.
And although small primordial BHs are thought to have been formed at the energy densities immediately following the Big Bang, and would have evaporated by now, no-one has yet detected the tell-tale gamma ray burst of a BH exploding in its final moments.

As far as I know, this is the only link between BHs and the Big Bang event.
The Big Bang was definitely not an explosion. An explosion is a small volume expanding into an existing larger volume. The Big Bang is nothing like that; it is simply the separation of co-ordinates of that volume increasing. There is NO outside, existing volume !
There was no 'before' the Big Bang as space-time geometry was established shortly after T=0.
The early universe consisted of energy, in effect, the baby universe had the property of energy. As it cooled, particles could form at various temperatures ( according to their energy ) and some still not understood mechanism accounted for the excess creation of what we call matter ( as opposed to anti-matter ).
At a certain temperature, some of those particles could actually bind together to form light elements, and the universe became transparent; gravitation bound those particles of matter into the stars and galaxies we see in the distant ( early ) universe. Some of those stars went on to explode in Novae and Supernovae ( establishing BHs which will be around for billions and billions of times the current age of the universe before they evaporate and explode ) producing the heavy elements that make us up.

 

Again Andy Quantum foam is NOT the Spin foam related to LQG, and so has little if any to do with gravity ( nor matter creation ).

And Itoero, not all predictions made by a model are necessarily physical. Models only have a range of validity, and that includes GR, QM, QFT and even Newtonian gravity. Surely you don't expect the Holographic PRINCIPLE ( not even a theory ) to be an exact representation of reality ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to touch further upon Migl's excellent post. +1

None of the models mentioned above supersede one another. They are all equally valid under the range of validity described by each. In some cases the differences simply amount to degree of freedom reductions. Under symmetry/assymetry groups

This includes the holographic principle, 

 

Here is a thought experiment " How many ways can one describe a box under mathematics ? " 

Everyone knows you can describe it as a 3d object. However that same object can also be described as 2 two dimensional objects under group theory.

Now replace the box with vectors and apply the vector mathematics under the two above treatments... 

GR isn't better than Newtonian physics they are both equally valid within the bounds of their applicability.

Neither is QM, QFT, Ads/CFT etc etc better than one another. They are different treatments, with different properties being examined under different metrics (conformal, commoving, canonical). Under different groups to reduce effective multi particle systems degrees of freedom.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MigL said:

According to accepted physics theory, Black holes can and do explode.
A BH has entropy and therefore a temperature. If its temperature exceeds that of surrounding space ( 2.7 deg ) then the Hawking mechanism will transform one of a virtual particle pair into a real particle, BUT, at the expense of the BH's mass-energy, so that, slowly the BH evaporates. This mechanism has been described in pop science as the capturing of one virtual particle by the event horizon ( very simplistic ), to tunneling 'through' the event horizon, and is in effect, a 'shotgun marriage' of GR and QFT.
As the BH gets smaller and smaller ( and its temperature/radiation increases dramatically ), it reaches the point where it can shed its event horizon and explode.

Agreed. But, just to be clear, most people proposing their personal theories that the Big Bang was caused by the explosion of a black hole (wrongly) assume that the larger a black hole is, the more likely it is to explode. They also (wrongly) assume that the density of the early universe must have meant it would form a black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Strange said:

You said:

What is that, if not a (bad) description of the big bang model?

 

Agreed : The above is a very brief and does not do the big bang theory justice.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

 

Again Andy Quantum foam is NOT the Spin foam related to LQG, and so has little if any to do with gravity ( nor matter creation ).

 

I think I may have used the wrong terminology or we are talking cross purposes.

This is the sort of foam stuff I have been waffling on about, which is not part of this thread. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf

Abstract

The new information-theoretic Process Physics provides an explanation of space as a quantum foam system in which gravity is an inhomogeneous flow of the quantum foam into matter. The older Newtonian and General Relativity theories for gravity are analysed. It is shown that Newtonian gravity may be written in the form of an in-flow. General Relativity is also analysed as an in-flow, for those cases where it has been tested. An analysis of various experimental data demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Jaseja et al, Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland DeWitte data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity. The experimental data suggests that the in-flow is turbulent, which amounts to the observation of a gravitational wave phenomena. A new in-flow theory of gravity is proposed which passes all the tests that General Relativity was claimed to have passed, but as well the new theory suggests that the so-called spiral galaxy rotation-velocity anomaly may be explained without the need of ‘dark matter’. Various other gravitational anomalies also appear to be explainable. Newtonian gravity appears to be strictly valid only outside of spherically symmetric matter systems.

I would like to get opinions on this on another thread, if the moderators agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantum foam is a 'state' of things at below the Planck level.
Suggesting that the 'state of things' changes makes sense; suggesting that the 'state of things' has a 'flow' does not ( to me ).

The paper also implies absolute frames and absolute motion.
Which then means all sorts of other things are in play ( and foundations of modern physics crumble ).
That alone makes it a non-starter for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Quantum foam is a 'state' of things at below the Planck level.
Suggesting that the 'state of things' changes makes sense; suggesting that the 'state of things' has a 'flow' does not ( to me ).

The paper also implies absolute frames and absolute motion.
Which then means all sorts of other things are in play ( and foundations of modern physics crumble ).
That alone makes it a non-starter for me.

Me, You, Them, is just a reference frame. A moderator has to make a decision where to put a discussion on this subject. I read, I visualize. I see flow (for me). I read Mordreds thread on what space is and after a few glasses of very good Portuguese wine I am definitely hooked.

A Moderator decision is required on discussing contraction and expansion of space, re the link posted.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

The problem is not that it is brief, but that it is wrong.

WTF now you think single big bang is wrong ? You change your mind more than my best friend ("the Missis") :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Handy andy said:

WTF now you think single big bang is wrong ? 

No. That is not what I said. I said your characterisation of the Big Bang was wrong.

13 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Can you correct the sentence I wrote, or write a better sentence covering the big bang.

I already did in response to your post which started this thread of discussion:

On 29/08/2017 at 4:30 PM, Strange said:

No it isn't. The Big Bang model says that the universe has always been completely full of matter. The universe then expanded, cooling the matter. 

So, to be specific, your description is wrong because it says that matter spread out through the universe (from some sort of creation/explosion). Whereas the "standard model" is that the universe was always full of matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 2:18 PM, swansont said:

It takes energy in that all things require energy owing to losses (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics) but the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same and unentangled particles.

The idea that wormholes are involved is not mainstream physics. It's not been demonstrated to be true, so the question of what happens with the wormhole can't be answered. 

That pesky law 2nd law of thermodynamics. When a particle pair is separated via a black hole leaving one on the outside of the black hole as hawking radiation virtual particle, or as a fermion. Does the particle entering the black hole add to the black holes energy level.?

Over a very long time (eternity) with no other mass entering the black hole could this effect increase the black holes energy level?

At what temperature or pressure can matter start decaying into antimatter, as observed on a large scale in big thunderstorms, (possibly as a result of plasmas at 6000C imploding and transiently producing much higher temperatures circa 20000C, causing molecules in the air to decay into antimatter and matter) Could antimatter inside a black hole cause it to have enough energy to explode some matter out. ? 

Would matter and antimatter particles created under that scenario stay entangled, like some super particle, or lightning ball until compressed together.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

That pesky law 2nd law of thermodynamics. When a particle pair is separated via a black hole leaving one on the outside of the black hole as hawking radiation virtual particle, or as a fermion. Does the particle entering the black hole add to the black holes energy level.?

Over a very long time (eternity) with no other mass entering the black hole could this effect increase the black holes energy level?

Wrong way round. The black hole contributes the energy corresponding to the mass of the particle and the mass of the antiparticle to convert the virtual/transient pair to real particles. Half of that mass is then returned to the black hole and half escapes. So the black hole loses mass.

17 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

At what temperature or pressure can matter start decaying into antimatter, as observed on a large scale in big thunderstorms, (possibly as a result of plasmas at 6000C imploding and transiently producing much higher temperatures circa 20000C, causing molecules in the air to decay into antimatter and matter) Could antimatter inside a black hole cause it to have enough energy to explode some matter out. ? 

Would matter and antimatter particles created under that scenario stay entangled, like some super particle, or lightning ball until compressed together.?

This is not so much the decay of matter as pair production from gamma ray photons: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

I believe particle-antiparticle pairs created in this way are entangled. But that won't last long as they will soon interact with other particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. That is not what I said. I said your characterisation of the Big Bang was wrong.

I already did in response to your post which started this thread of discussion:

So, to be specific, your description is wrong because it says that matter spread out through the universe (from some sort of creation/explosion). Whereas the "standard model" is that the universe was always full of matter.

Yes I understand all of that. The expansion of space took with it all matter at a very high temperature, and as it cooled it formed into the heavier elements. This Coalesced due to gravity into what we have today, and space is still expanding between galaxies. (except things like the Andromeda galaxy, and a handful of others which appear to be coming this way) You have repeatedly stated space is empty it is not a substance, which as you are aware I don't absolutely believe. Understanding an argument does not mean I believe it to be true.

Which leads me to the concept of the holographic universe and entanglement, and the chicken or egg scenario ref space. Simplifying space can be viewed as a smooth thing, or it can be broken down simply into individual 3 dimensional cubes each of which is connected by a central point, an additional dimension. The three dimensional part of the individual cubes expands to eternity or a distance undefined at the edge of space, whilst the internal points are all connected to a certain extent by the extra dimension, as in entanglement, or wormholes. Philosophically infinite space and zero space must both be able to exist at the same time, allowing entanglement or wormholes across a universe.

The individual cubes concept breaking space down into ever decreasing squares, is perhaps an over simplification.

I note you have just replied to the previous post. I will stop here and have a read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Handy andy said:

The expansion of space took with it all matter at a very high temperature, and as it cooled it formed into the heavier elements.

Just a detail: only hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium) were formed this way. All the heavier elements were formed later in stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Just a detail: only hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium) were formed this way. All the heavier elements were formed later in stars.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Wrong way round. The black hole contributes the energy corresponding to the mass of the particle and the mass of the antiparticle to convert the virtual/transient pair to real particles. Half of that mass is then returned to the black hole and half escapes. So the black hole loses mass.

This is not so much the decay of matter as pair production from gamma ray photons: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

I believe particle-antiparticle pairs created in this way are entangled. But that won't last long as they will soon interact with other particles.

Migl and Mordred pointed that out above ref the black holes above, I hadn't absorbed it.

Thanks for the lightning link +1 , I already new most of this as lightning is an interest of mine. The production of the antimatter is caused by the extreme heat from the imploding plasmas, and high magnetic fields in the clouds induced by extreme currents flowing. The potential explosive effect of lightning balls if compressed could be quite dangerous, and cause an antimatter explosion (Tunguska ?) Lightning balls have been observed to be quite large when formed at high altitude etc There was a huge amount of high altitude electrical activity all over Europe prior to the Tunguska event, possible helped by a suspected huge natural gas release from Tunguska itself following an earth quake, if you read all the available reports, its actually quite interesting.

It was mentioned earlier. All elements up to and including iron can be formed in a sun or supernovae. But where do the heavier elements come from ? Black hole perhaps? And as if by magic I just opened my email and hey presto https://phys.org/news/2017-09-physicists-theories-black-holes-early.html#nRlv

Edited by Handy andy
added link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fusion reaction up to iron releases energy ( exothermic ), and this powers a star during its lifetime.
To assemble heavier nuclei, energy has to be supplied ( endothermic ).
It is the collapse and subsequent rebound of the core, when a star goes ( super )nova, which supplies the gravitational energy to fuse heavier elements and outshine galaxies.

Maybe if you did a little more research into what others are telling you, and a little less flying off in wild speculative tangents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Handy andy said:

That pesky law 2nd law of thermodynamics. When a particle pair is separated via a black hole leaving one on the outside of the black hole as hawking radiation virtual particle, or as a fermion.

Virtual particles and fermions are not an either/or choice

5 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Does the particle entering the black hole add to the black holes energy level.?

It lowers it. It takes energy to turn virtual particles into real particles

5 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Over a very long time (eternity) with no other mass entering the black hole could this effect increase the black holes energy level?

It's how they evaporate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MigL said:

The fusion reaction up to iron releases energy ( exothermic ), and this powers a star during its lifetime.
To assemble heavier nuclei, energy has to be supplied ( endothermic ).
It is the collapse and subsequent rebound of the core, when a star goes ( super )nova, which supplies the gravitational energy to fuse heavier elements and outshine galaxies.

Maybe if you did a little more research into what others are telling you, and a little less flying off in wild speculative tangents...

The process you are describing is for a supernovae, which from the limited research I have done, can not produce, anything more than iron. Is that wrong? Is something like a black hole ejecting matter, not a possible scenario as described in the link above?

Sorry for speculating is just part of how I think, and it happens from time to time. 

Do you have any opinion on the link I posted https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf ref gravity.

 

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Virtual particles and fermions are not an either/or choice

It lowers it. It takes energy to turn virtual particles into real particles

It's how they evaporate.

 

virtual particle is a transient fluctuation that exhibits many of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but that exists for a limited time.

A fermion is a subatomic particle, such as a nucleon, which has half-integral spin and follows the statistical description given by Fermi and Dirac

A boson is a subatomic particle, such as a photon, which has zero or integral spin and follows the statistical description given by S. N. Bose and Einstein

Strange answered most of my questions above, but thanks for coming back.

Strange also pointed out after the big bang at very high temperature the result was hydrogen, and not heavy metals as would appear from a black hole or a supernovae.

You agreed earlier that with the help of a quantum black hole particle pairs could be separated in theory. Would this leave the basic building blocks of hydrogen in space?

I do have a bunch of other questions but am dangerously close to hijacking so am going to shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

The process you are describing is for a supernovae, which from the limited research I have done, can not produce, anything more than iron. Is that wrong?

"During a supernova, the star releases very large amounts of energy as well as neutrons, which allows elements heavier than iron, such as uranium and gold, to be produced. In the supernova explosion, all of these elements are expelled out into space."

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1727-how-elements-are-formed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reasonable link to the Big Bang  http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/bigbang.html

At the earlier stages of the big bang quarks arrived on the scene. Could pairs of quarks appearing from the vacuum of space today, combine with other quarks with the help of quantum black holes and form protons?. 2 up quarks + 1 down quark ie a proton.

Could quarks appearing in space be the source of dark matter, and could they be detected ? What level of radiation might an entangled up quark and down quark give off when they recombine and disappear if any? What level of radiation might an none entangled up quark and down quark give off if they combine?

The background radiation from the link above peaks at about 170GHz, using planks E=hf

6.626x10^-34 x 170 x 10^ 12 = 1.12x10^-20 Joules or 0.0070305609544eV which is not much energy.

Space is still expanding between most galaxies, and if I read Mordreds space thread correctly space does not exist without a field of some sorts, virtual particles or waves etc. What if any radiation would be given off if virtual particles collided?.

Could a virtual particle pair appear at different sides of the universe through entanglement or a 4th dimension.?

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Strange I think you stated on another thread dark matter had been identified, do you have a link stating exactly what it is?

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:28 PM, MigL said:

Quantum foam is a 'state' of things at below the Planck level.
Suggesting that the 'state of things' changes makes sense; suggesting that the 'state of things' has a 'flow' does not ( to me ).

The paper also implies absolute frames and absolute motion.
Which then means all sorts of other things are in play ( and foundations of modern physics crumble ).
That alone makes it a non-starter for me.

Sorry for the previous question I had forgotten you had already answered, my question.

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

At the earlier stages of the big bang quarks arrived on the scene. Could pairs of quarks appearing from the vacuum of space today, combine with other quarks with the help of quantum black holes and form protons?. 2 up quarks + 1 down quark ie a proton.

That would violate several conservation laws. 

4 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Could quarks appearing in space be the source of dark matter, and could they be detected ?

Quarks, and particles created from them, interact via electromagnetic forces. Dark matter doesn't. So no.

6 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

What level of radiation might an entangled up quark and down quark give off when they recombine and disappear if any? What level of radiation might an none entangled up quark and down quark give off if they combine?

An up and a down quark would not combine and disappear. And they cannot form a stable particle together. (And they can't exist independently.) But ...

An up / anti-up pair would release about 5MeV. A down/anti-down pair would release twice that. As a pair of photons, in both cases.

13 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Strange I think you stated on another thread dark matter had been identified, do you have a link stating exactly what it is?

No one knows. It hasn't been identified yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

That would violate several conservation laws. 

Quarks, and particles created from them, interact via electromagnetic forces. Dark matter doesn't. So no.

An up and a down quark would not combine and disappear. And they cannot form a stable particle together. (And they can't exist independently.) But ...

An up / anti-up pair would release about 5MeV. A down/anti-down pair would release twice that. As a pair of photons, in both cases.

No one knows. It hasn't been identified yet.

Earlier I asked

1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.

Swanson replied "sure"

The big bang model produces a universe of pre-existing fundamental particles, which coalesced into hydrogen and helium I think you said. Why is it not possible for quarksappearing out of the vacuum of space very slowly

I thinking an up/down quark particle meeting its antiparticle would annihilate and produce radiation. I know a proton is 2 up quarks + 1 down quark giving the proton its +e charge which is normally a stable particle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Handy andy said:

1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.

Swanson replied "sure"

In the case of quarks, I don't think it can be that simple. The black hole would need to provide enough energy to generate two or more (pairs of) quarks as free quarks cannot exist. Rather like the way that the amount of energy needed to remove a quark from a proton would cause more quarks to be formed to couple up with the one you are trying to extract.

Quote

Why is it not possible for quarksappearing out of the vacuum of space very slowly

Conservation of energy, spin, charge, color-charge and all the other quantum properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on page 2 of this thread

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205 There are many interesting points that interested may be interested in, ref worm hole creation as an explanation for entanglement, but also directly related to creating particles out of nothing the following paragraph is written 

Qoute -Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled. Close Qoute.

Does the above link refute your claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What claim?

Particle-anti-particle pairs cn be produced, in various ways, by providing energy. The Schwinger effect is one example of pair production. 

(As far as I can tell from this article, this work is purely theoretical. He hasn't actually done an experiment to produce quarks.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 10:10 PM, swansont said:

The only way to have extra energy is for the particles to be part of a system.

Particles in for example a zero temperature quantum system don't create extra energy, they transform energy.

There are two meanings for the word 'mass' in special relativity. There is invariant mass and relativistic mass. If a photon has no mass then how can it have momentum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.