Sign in to follow this  
RedShiftam

ER=EPR question?

Recommended Posts

I am a bit confused. There are virtual particles in the space, that are entangled and thanks to that the space is not breaking apart. According to the thought experiment  (28min to 40min), we create from some material a pair of particles that are entangled(Bell pairs). Then we divide them, and we make from them two black holes. These black holes are also entangled. So if the holes are made of some material and not from the virtual particles, it follows that the material from which the black holes are made can not be entangled with the virtual particles that are outside the event horizon. So the virtual particles, outside event horizon must remain entangled with those who find themselves in the black hole's interior. On the other hand, if the black holes are made of the virtual particles, then I understand why this monogamy problem comes out.

Lecture : 

 

Edited by RedShiftam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publish or perish.  It seems today in order to continue funding it is best to talk about something 40,000 light years away since no one can verify

or contradict anything you say.  Scribble a picture of Mickey Mouse on the board then start drawing analysis of it.  One born rich PHD, later handicapped, in England

actually got a Nobel prize for baloney similar to this, so why not jump on the band wagon, Mr. Susskind?  No matter how you quantify the baloney each piece

is still baloney.  Talk about something someone can demonstrate otherwise just hot air and wasted funding.  We were totally wrong about Pluto and its a little

closer than our black hole.  I thought this section did not allow conjecture?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2018 at 12:06 PM, RedShiftam said:

I am a bit confused. There are virtual particles in the space, that are entangled and thanks to that the space is not breaking apart. According to the thought experiment  (28min to 40min), we create from some material a pair of particles that are entangled(Bell pairs). Then we divide them, and we make from them two black holes. These black holes are also entangled. So if the holes are made of some material and not from the virtual particles, it follows that the material from which the black holes are made can not be entangled with the virtual particles that are outside the event horizon. So the virtual particles, outside event horizon must remain entangled with those who find themselves in the black hole's interior. On the other hand, if the black holes are made of the virtual particles, then I understand why this monogamy problem comes out.

I cannot readily watch videos, so my answer may not address what is in it. However, there seems to be some confusion in what you write. There are two separate things here. One is virtual particle pairs which appear and disappear. The other is the entanglement of "real" (non-virtual) particles that make up black holes and Hawking radiation.

Roughly, what Maldacena and Susskind have shown is that there is an equivalence between entanglement and the wormhole that (hypothetically) connects black holes. This relates the particles that fall into and are radiated from black holes.

Based on this, they also suggest that the structure of space-time may be maintained by the entanglement between virtual particles.

 

18 minutes ago, Doug Jones said:

Publish or perish.  It seems today in order to continue funding it is best to talk about something 40,000 light years away since no one can verify

or contradict anything you say.  Scribble a picture of Mickey Mouse on the board then start drawing analysis of it.  One born rich PHD, later handicapped, in England

actually got a Nobel prize for baloney similar to this, so why not jump on the band wagon, Mr. Susskind?  No matter how you quantify the baloney each piece

is still baloney.  Talk about something someone can demonstrate otherwise just hot air and wasted funding.  We were totally wrong about Pluto and its a little

closer than our black hole.  I thought this section did not allow conjecture?  

If you can show errors in the work of Susskind and Maldacena, please do so. This sort of childish rant doesn't belong on a science forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Strange said:

However, there seems to be some confusion in what you write. There are two separate things here. One is virtual particle pairs which appear and disappear. The other is the entanglement of "real" (non-virtual) particles that make up black holes and Hawking radiation. 

 

The virtual pairs of particles are also entangled. Hawking radiation is gained by particle–antiparticle radiation emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual (entangled) particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles. The positive one (Hawking radiation) escapes but the negative one lowers the mass of the hole. So if the black hole evaporates over time why does the late radiation have to be highly entangled with the early radiation? They are already entangled with their partners who are in the black hole's interior.

Edited by RedShiftam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedShiftam said:

The virtual pairs of particles are also entangled.

True. But that is a separate thing from the description of building a black hole from entangled articles.

1 hour ago, RedShiftam said:

This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual (entangled) particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.

Yes, so we are dealing with real particles not virtual ones. 

 

1 hour ago, RedShiftam said:

So if the black hole evaporates over time why does the late radiation have to be highly entangled with the early radiation? They are already entangled with their partners who are in the black hole's interior.

There is an article here that attempts to explain it: https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-entanglement-and-the-firewall-paradox-20150424/

But I have to say, it isn't very clear! I am guessing this might be because it is one of those things where it is hard to explain in words what the mathematics describes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I read the article and the conclusion is that if we want information not to be lost one of the ways is to say that the late radiation is entangled with the early radiation. As far as I understand the whole problem is to find a way to preserve the entanglement (between the particles). Honestly, I don't like very much this idea that the particle into the black hole is connected through a wormhole with the particle out of the hole. 

Edited by RedShiftam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to look at this video is to recall the following that has been mentioned in the video. Entanglement must have a correlation between two  quantities. If you have a correlation one can fully describe an entangled state by the measured conditions of the measured state. In the case of the two BH's the question becomes one of "Does the two states still preserve enough causal connection sufficient to preserve the entangled correlated states" Can we accurately make those predictions via measuring one state and predicting the other state ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I recently tried to imagine a different kind of BH. For Ex.: the entropy of the BH grows gradually as the body enters the interior.

1.jpg.5940b87b939a1f03e289cb1917bbb71a.jpg

But there is a problem with this formula, if the object is small, it will give all its entropy much after the center of the BH. So if we decide that the object has radius equal of the BH is going to be better.22.jpg.14657cb7df054a32bb1c09369bf0f501.jpg

This is just a quick thought and nothing more!

33.jpg.43ec2e3fb6fc90d9909dfb9b15f02b93.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by RedShiftam

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
Sign in to follow this