Jump to content
interested

Quantum Fluctuations/Foam

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

  As you mentioned radiated from a WH, this is identical to radiating from a central source. This would entail a vector field as opposed to a scalar field such as the BB model. The type of vector field would be diverging. Regions closer to the WH will naturally have a higher mass density which is detectable via its temperature contributions. These temperature variations will also show up in the BAO, Baryon Acoustic oscillations which is a fancy way of describing the rate of infalling matter and outflowing matter on anistrophy distributions.

 I also recall stating that a BH varies in rotation rate and thus so does its WH exit, this will vary the mass distributions as well.

 So good luck in this theoretical view, Its been tried before and lost out with the body of evidence since the sheer uniformity of the CMB was measured.

Radiated at all points in space from a wormhole/non spacial dimension. How can a none spacial dimension have vectors? 

A wormhole is a theoretical none spacial dimension, how would this rotate. 

It is interesting to look at, even if it is only theoretical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, interested said:

Radiated at all points in space from a wormhole/non spacial dimension. How can a none spacial dimension have vectors? 

There is not point asking us. You made it up, so you need to explain it. 

2 hours ago, interested said:

A wormhole is a theoretical none spacial dimension

Is it? Do have any evidence to support that claim?

2 hours ago, interested said:

It is interesting to look at, even if it is only theoretical.

For it to be theoretical, you would need a model and evidence. You have neither. It isn't even hypothetical. You are just making stuff up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think a WH has no spatial dimensions yet contain an entire universe with 3 spatial dimensions with one of time? Does it not have a volume hence 3 spatial dimensions it also evolves over time for the 4th dimension of time so how does it not have dimensions ?

Why would you think there would be no rotation when every BH we have found rotates and a WH is causally connected to a BH ie part of the same system connected through the Einstein Rosen bridge. ?

Those two arguments makes no sense sorry

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mordred said:

Why would you think a WH has no spatial dimensions yet contain an entire universe with 3 spatial dimensions with one of time? Does it not have a volume hence 3 spatial dimensions it also evolves over time for the 4th dimension of time so how does it not have dimensions ?

Why would you think there would be no rotation when every BH we have found rotates and a WH is causally connected to a BH ie part of the same system connected through the Einstein Rosen bridge. ?

Those two arguments makes no sense sorry

 

You are probably correct as usual. 

BH's forming inside existing space time and rotating inside space time which formed after the BB or White hole is a ludicrous idea especially if the expansion of space is driven from ER bridges and a White Hole instead of dark energy. I was thinking incorrectly all BH singularities may feed one big WH via an ER bridge, which is of course a ludicrous idea and a complete misunderstanding.  The idea that all points in space may be connected is ludicrous and brought on by instantaneous wave form collapse, quantum entanglement and wave particle duality,  which if an additional none spacial dimension connecting all points in space existed may go some way to adding to my confusion, and line of questioning. 

If quantum fluctuations are the cause of dark energy and drive the expansion of space, what drives the quantum fluctuations. It just seemed reasonable that a WH might be behind it. 

It just goes to show how wrong I can be. I may take up Swansons suggesting and go back to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, interested said:

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

Eternal Blackholes have no spin. 

That is because the Einstein-Rosen bridge is based on a Schwarzschild black hole (because the mathematics is [relatively] simple). A Schwarzschild black hole is unchanging (eternal) in an otherwise empty universe - in other words, it is a simplification.

But black holes with spin (Kerr black holes) can also have wormholes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric#Kerr_black_holes_as_wormholes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 7:45 PM, Strange said:

That is because the Einstein-Rosen bridge is based on a Schwarzschild black hole (because the mathematics is [relatively] simple). A Schwarzschild black hole is unchanging (eternal) in an otherwise empty universe - in other words, it is a simplification.

But black holes with spin (Kerr black holes) can also have wormholes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric#Kerr_black_holes_as_wormholes

Would you or anyone like to discuss Popalawski mentioned by Mordred earlier as a possible source of dark energy/quantum foam driving the expansion of the universe.  http://www.thespaceacademy.org/2017/11/every-black-hole-contains-another.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, interested said:

Would you or anyone like to discuss Popalawski mentioned by Mordred earlier as a possible source of dark energy/quantum foam driving the expansion of the universe.  http://www.thespaceacademy.org/2017/11/every-black-hole-contains-another.html

Does that say anything about dark energy? No.

And quantum fluctuations already have an explanation. If you replace that, then you are saying that all of quantum theory is wrong. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 8:58 AM, Strange said:

Does that say anything about dark energy? No.

And quantum fluctuations already have an explanation. If you replace that, then you are saying that all of quantum theory is wrong. Good luck with that.

HUP yours :) explains an effect not a cause.  A WH still expanding in space time from the original BB inside a mass less BH, may have been interesting to explore and be a cause of Quantum fluctuations, perhaps eminating from gravitational waves in BH's etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, interested said:

HUP yours :) explains an effect not a cause

The fact that some observables are incompatible is not just an “effect” - it’s a fundamental feature of our world, and the defining characteristic that distinguishes a quantum system from a classical one. Pretty much everything else in quantum theory emerges from this fundamental feature, and the HUP merely serves to quantify it.

20 minutes ago, interested said:

A WH still expanding in space time from the original BB inside a mass less BH

A white hole (as the term is normally used) is a static construct, and cannot expand. Also, it can only exist in a spacetime that is completely empty, and asymptotically flat. This is not at all what we observe the universe to be like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

A white hole (as the term is normally used) is a static construct, and cannot expand. Also, it can only exist in a spacetime that is completely empty, and asymptotically flat

An ER bridge between a WH and BH occupies what part of space time? How would you define space time inside an ER bridge? What would the output of an ER bridge look like in space time?  

Fundamental features in flatland might be best explained via the HUP, adding an extra none spacial dimension might explain how an ER bridge works, how wave particle duality allows instantaneous wave function collapse, and how entanglement works. Plus loads more.  

I have  lot of things to do, so will not be online for a while. Thanks All for the input. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.