This New Equation Could Unite The Two Biggest Theories in Physics

In his new paper, Susskind proposes a scenario where hypothetical Alice and Bob each take a bunch of entangled particles – Alice takes one member of each pair, and Bob takes the other, and they fly off in opposite directions of the Universe in their hypothetical hypersonic jets.

Once in their separate positions, Alice and Bob smash their particles together with such great force, they create two separate black holes.

The result, says Susskind, is two entangled black holes on opposite sides of the Universe, linked in the middle by a giant wormhole.

“If ER = EPR is right, a wormhole will link those black holes; entanglement, therefore, can be described using the geometry of wormholes,” says Tom Siegfried over at Science News.

“Even more remarkable … is the possibility that two entangled subatomic particles alone are themselves somehow connected by a sort of quantum wormhole,” Siegfried adds.

“Since wormholes are contortions of spacetime geometry – described by Einstein’s gravitational equations – identifying them with quantum entanglement would forge a link between gravity and quantum mechanics.”

Is Susskind right? It’s impossible to say just yet, because while he’s published his paper on pre-press website arXiv.org to be openly scrutinised by his peers, it’s yet to go through the formal peer-review process.

The only reason I can see that this has not been previously investigated is the circular nature of it’s reason. Otherwise it is compelling in that it implies the inevitability of an antimatter universe that is separated from ours by wormhole space, provided a BB scenario is inherent. It would make some sense that photon emission from each lobe would provide sufficient force to maintain this wormhole separation.

I have a great respect for Susskind.

But I’d have to look more closely at the logic and mathematics of this before commenting.

“Einstein Rosen” is the paper
“The particle problem in the general theory of relativity”, Physical Review (ser. 2), 48, 73–77.
Direct link to paper at
http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

“Einstein Podolsky Rosen” is the paper
“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Physical Review (ser. 2), 47, 777–780
Direct link to paper at http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

mollwollfumble said:

I have a great respect for Susskind.

But I’d have to look more closely at the logic and mathematics of this before commenting.

My comment was as generic as I think this observation would allow without significantly more maths than has been supplied. It is so circular that was the only other element I could distinguish that might fall into the same equation.

The conjecture has already made its way onto Wikipedia.

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR”!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

“This is a conjectured resolution to the AMPS firewall paradox. Whether or not there is a firewall depends upon what is thrown into the other distant black hole.”

“This conjecture is an extrapolation of the observation by Mark van Raamsdonk in 2010 that a maximally extended AdS-Schwarzschild black hole, which is a nontraversable wormhole, is dual to a pair of maximally entangled thermal conformal field theories via the AdS/CFT correspondence.”

“The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles — even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren’t opposite — are connected by Planck scale wormholes. A similar idea was actually first proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 2013 without a violation of quantum mechanical linear superposition of separable states as in the conjecture by Maldacena and Susskind.”

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:

“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:

“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”

There is something very substantial in this bit. Cool. Cheers moll. :)

From the recent “cool horizons for entangled black holes” paper.

“It is very tempting to think that any EPR correlated system is connected by some sort of ER
bridge, although in general the bridge may be a highly quantum object that is yet to be
independently defined. Indeed, we speculate that even the simple singlet state of two spins
is connected by a (very quantum) bridge of this type.”

Hmm, I see, Susskind is proposing a quantum wormhole. That’s new.

I’ve never learned enough QM to understand the equations, though they look startlingly simple. What I do understand, though is that the discussion begins with the two alternative ways to understand the Penrose diagram. One is as a lone black hole, the other is as a pair of black holes, a nontraversible wormhole, where the two black holes are entangled.

Discussion also covers the two separate cases, one where the two ends of the wormhole are in the same universe and the other where the two ends are in different universes. All this is familiar (though not necessarily correct).

Not familiar to me, but apparently also well known, is this. If Bob and Alice sit at opposite ends of a wormhole, then if Alice throws rocks into her black hole then this creates a “firewall” of particles exiting Bob’s black hole that stops Bob from throwing anything into it.

mollwollfumble said:

Not familiar to me, but apparently also well known, is this. If Bob and Alice sit at opposite ends of a wormhole, then if Alice throws rocks into her black hole then this creates a “firewall” of particles exiting Bob’s black hole that stops Bob from throwing anything into it.

Where does this restriction end? Is Bob only limited only while Alice’s rocks are accelerating?

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not familiar to me, but apparently also well known, is this. If Bob and Alice sit at opposite ends of a wormhole, then if Alice throws rocks into her black hole then this creates a “firewall” of particles exiting Bob’s black hole that stops Bob from throwing anything into it.

Where does this restriction end? Is Bob only limited only while Alice’s rocks are accelerating?

Is that the problem? The rocks accelerate indefinitely?

What do you know about the “instanton”?

This plays a big role in the ER = EPR theory. But the Wikipedia article on instantons looks like a combination of self-contradiction and double dutch to me.

mollwollfumble said:

What do you know about the “instanton”?

This plays a big role in the ER = EPR theory. But the Wikipedia article on instantons looks like a combination of self-contradiction and double dutch to me.

Looks like what that is saying is that every particle interaction point in space is treated as a virtual event horizon moment specific to the interaction, if I follow it at all, the interaction eliminates that points virtual particle capacity momentarily which….. err… ‘echoes in eternity’….. to be colourful.

An instanton is negative mass I think.

The bookie might be shortening odds on Susskind at this point. In this light string theory works well for me for the first time.

So the circular gravity theory here has to be:

BB pair production is separated by initial instanton virtual EH as like particles align to begin the formation of lobal UEM fields.
.
Engagement of each lobes UEM field dissolves initial VEH as particles repel each other within each lobe creating secondary VEH’s.
.
.
Skip to the end and gravitation becomes the result of instanton VEH dissolution as each lobe maintains the wormhole separating their respective spaces.
<<
<<
I hope I didn’t skip too much for that to make obvious sense but I got a lung infection going on.

Instantons would be what I was trying to describe with reference to the wake of mass passing through vacuum, moll, AFAICT.

Hang on. Doesn’t this all have to make empty space instanton residue?

Postpocelipse said:

Hang on. Doesn’t this all have to make empty space instanton residue?

If so that makes a mind experiment I used to use pretty well accurate. How absurd.

Postpocelipse said:

So the circular gravity theory here has to be:

BB pair production is separated by initial instanton virtual EH as like particles align to begin the formation of lobal UEM fields.
.
Engagement of each lobes UEM field dissolves initial VEH as particles repel each other within each lobe creating secondary VEH’s.
.
.
Skip to the end and gravitation becomes the result of instanton VEH dissolution as each lobe maintains the wormhole separating their respective spaces.
<<
<<
I hope I didn’t skip too much for that to make obvious sense but I got a lung infection going on.

> BB pair production is separated by initial instanton …

That’s exactly where I got lost.

There’s a brief mention of the instanton in the book “Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell” by A. Zee. Looking it up now.

455. “The discovery of the soliton and instanton showed that Feynman diagrams aren’t everything”. That’s not much help, but I do know what a soliton is.

286, ah, that’s better. The instanton gets a mention just one page before the mention of the black hole, and one page after the magnetic monopole. I still don’t understand it, but at least the version in A. Zee is potentially understandable.

Field theorists talk about a hierarchy of topological defects, none of which can be handled by Feynman diagrams. The hierarchy is kink to vortex to monopole to instanton. All these are forms of soliton, as is the hedgehog. The black hole is also a topological defect, but I’m not sure where it fits in. An instanton is a weird map from 3-D Euclidean space onto 3-D Euclidean space.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

So the circular gravity theory here has to be:

BB pair production is separated by initial instanton virtual EH as like particles align to begin the formation of lobal UEM fields.
.
Engagement of each lobes UEM field dissolves initial VEH as particles repel each other within each lobe creating secondary VEH’s.
.
.
Skip to the end and gravitation becomes the result of instanton VEH dissolution as each lobe maintains the wormhole separating their respective spaces.
<<
<<
I hope I didn’t skip too much for that to make obvious sense but I got a lung infection going on.

> BB pair production is separated by initial instanton …

That’s exactly where I got lost.

Best description I can give is an instanton is something like a shadow cast by the interaction between two particle’s fields that for just two particles is something like leaving behind a small virtual EH. If you begin from BB pair production the global result is responsible for spacetime curvature. If I attempted to analogise them to wormholes or something more complex I would quickly run short on description. I don’t really get the description of “An instanton is a weird map from 3-D Euclidean space onto 3-D Euclidean space”, but it sounds about right.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

So the circular gravity theory here has to be:

BB pair production is separated by initial instanton virtual EH as like particles align to begin the formation of lobal UEM fields.
.
Engagement of each lobes UEM field dissolves initial VEH as particles repel each other within each lobe creating secondary VEH’s.
.
.
Skip to the end and gravitation becomes the result of instanton VEH dissolution as each lobe maintains the wormhole separating their respective spaces.
<<
<<
I hope I didn’t skip too much for that to make obvious sense but I got a lung infection going on.

> BB pair production is separated by initial instanton …

That’s exactly where I got lost.

Best description I can give is an instanton is something like a shadow cast by the interaction between two particle’s fields that for just two particles is something like leaving behind a small virtual EH. If you begin from BB pair production the global result is responsible for spacetime curvature. If I attempted to analogise them to wormholes or something more complex I would quickly run short on description. I don’t really get the description of “An instanton is a weird map from 3-D Euclidean space onto 3-D Euclidean space”, but it sounds about right.

I’ll keep chewing it over but these are all bits I didn’t have a verbal reference for so I’ll need to catch up with material I hadn’t expected to find. That much is pleasing.

:)

weird map is also a very appropriate description……

:P

Hey moll. Just figured out something distinguishable about instantons. If EH is an accurate description then it has to include the factor of an instanton being an EH in time not space. That is currently the closest I can get to clarifying it being a ‘weird map from 3d Euclidean space to 3d Euclidean space’ at this point.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

So the circular gravity theory here has to be:

BB pair production is separated by initial instanton virtual EH as like particles align to begin the formation of lobal UEM fields.
.
Engagement of each lobes UEM field dissolves initial VEH as particles repel each other within each lobe creating secondary VEH’s.
.
.
Skip to the end and gravitation becomes the result of instanton VEH dissolution as each lobe maintains the wormhole separating their respective spaces.
<<
<<
I hope I didn’t skip too much for that to make obvious sense but I got a lung infection going on.

> BB pair production is separated by initial instanton …

That’s exactly where I got lost.

Best description I can give is an instanton is something like a shadow cast by the interaction between two particle’s fields that for just two particles is something like leaving behind a small virtual EH. If you begin from BB pair production the global result is responsible for spacetime curvature. If I attempted to analogise them to wormholes or something more complex I would quickly run short on description. I don’t really get the description of “An instanton is a weird map from 3-D Euclidean space onto 3-D Euclidean space”, but it sounds about right.

> an instanton is something like a shadow cast by the interaction between two particle’s fields

Good. I can follow that.

> leaving behind a small virtual EH

What’s an “EH”?

> the global result is responsible for spacetime curvature.

In the absence of mass, spacetime curvature is near-zero. So is this related to mass, or to a small near-zero component, or to pre-inflation curvature?

If the third, then instantons must have proceeded all common particles because until the end of inflation the universe was too small to contain the common particles. Oh wait, that’s an inflaton not an instanton :-( or both eg. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.6182v1.pdf, but I don’t understand that either.

> the formation of lobal UEM fields

The formation of what?
———————————————-
Perhaps if I go back and find the first ever scientific paper about instantons.

The following paper is early, but I’m not sure if it’s early enough. Also, isn’t free access on the web.
A.A. Belavin; A.M. Polyakov; A.S. Schwartz; Yu.S.Tyupkin (1975). “Pseudoparticle solutions of the Yang-Mills equations”. Phys.Lett. B59: 85–87.

Looking a bit later, from 1979.
“Instantons in Yang-Mills Theory are defined as non singular solutions of the classical equations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space”
“A gravitational instanton is a non-singular complete positive definite metric which satisfies the classical vacuum Einstein equations or the Einstein equations with a Lambda term”

No, that’s not specific enough for me to understand, try again. No luck.

mollwollfumble said:

> an instanton is something like a shadow cast by the interaction between two particle’s fields

Good. I can follow that.

> leaving behind a small virtual EH

What’s an “EH”?

> the global result is responsible for spacetime curvature.

In the absence of mass, spacetime curvature is near-zero. So is this related to mass, or to a small near-zero component, or to pre-inflation curvature?

If the third, then instantons must have proceeded all common particles because until the end of inflation the universe was too small to contain the common particles. Oh wait, that’s an inflaton not an instanton :-( or both eg. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.6182v1.pdf, but I don’t understand that either.

> the formation of lobal UEM fields

The formation of what?
———————————————-
Perhaps if I go back and find the first ever scientific paper about instantons.

The following paper is early, but I’m not sure if it’s early enough. Also, isn’t free access on the web.
A.A. Belavin; A.M. Polyakov; A.S. Schwartz; Yu.S.Tyupkin (1975). “Pseudoparticle solutions of the Yang-Mills equations”. Phys.Lett. B59: 85–87.

Looking a bit later, from 1979.
“Instantons in Yang-Mills Theory are defined as non singular solutions of the classical equations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space”
“A gravitational instanton is a non-singular complete positive definite metric which satisfies the classical vacuum Einstein equations or the Einstein equations with a Lambda term”

No, that’s not specific enough for me to understand, try again. No luck.

EH=Event Horizon…. I referred to it originally as virtual as it has no spatial component and exists beneath quantum foam in a manner difficult to define.

Doing my best here. This is super slippery ground or description. I don’t think an instanton can be readily described with spatial attributes but only time ones.

This could easily be a long shot but it is possible for a substantial particle an instanton exists between it’s spin.

I have an inkling that instantons are the factor that establishes and subsequently defines collapse of wave function.

Giving up on understanding this now. Perhaps when I grow up.

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on understanding this now. Perhaps when I grow up.

I know how you feel. I can only come at it at all because that mind experiment I used has left me with a sense of up and down in about this specific area. I’m mostly just chuffed that someone else has apparently deciphered a substantial quantity of the material so I can absorb the subject without breaking my brain on that exercise.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on understanding this now. Perhaps when I grow up.

I know how you feel. I can only come at it at all because that mind experiment I used has left me with a sense of up and down in about this specific area. I’m mostly just chuffed that someone else has apparently deciphered a substantial quantity of the material so I can absorb the subject without breaking my brain on that exercise.

Hehe. E=mc2 makes GR so neat. I get the feeling that it will remain in peoples affections for a while cause I don’t think ER=EPR will ever make this area intuitively obvious.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on understanding this now. Perhaps when I grow up.

I know how you feel. I can only come at it at all because that mind experiment I used has left me with a sense of up and down in about this specific area. I’m mostly just chuffed that someone else has apparently deciphered a substantial quantity of the material so I can absorb the subject without breaking my brain on that exercise.

Hehe. E=mc2 makes GR so neat. I get the feeling that it will remain in peoples affections for a while cause I don’t think ER=EPR will ever make this area intuitively obvious.

Oh no, I tend to disagree. If ER = EPR happens to be correct, then the equivalence between the two faster than light phenomena wormholes and “spooky action at a distance” not only makes intuitive sense but also unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity based on that other great unification the AdS/CFT correspondence. It even ties in way back with Sakharov’s work on unification.

The result would be form of TOE that doesn’t require even a single real particle outside of the standard model of physics.

In other words, if true then this is big , as big as E=Mc².

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I know how you feel. I can only come at it at all because that mind experiment I used has left me with a sense of up and down in about this specific area. I’m mostly just chuffed that someone else has apparently deciphered a substantial quantity of the material so I can absorb the subject without breaking my brain on that exercise.

Hehe. E=mc2 makes GR so neat. I get the feeling that it will remain in peoples affections for a while cause I don’t think ER=EPR will ever make this area intuitively obvious.

Oh no, I tend to disagree. If ER = EPR happens to be correct, then the equivalence between the two faster than light phenomena wormholes and “spooky action at a distance” not only makes intuitive sense but also unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity based on that other great unification the AdS/CFT correspondence. It even ties in way back with Sakharov’s work on unification.

The result would be form of TOE that doesn’t require even a single real particle outside of the standard model of physics.

In other words, if true then this is big , as big as E=Mc².

I agree absolutely just think that actually comprehending the material is more challenging than GR.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Hehe. E=mc2 makes GR so neat. I get the feeling that it will remain in peoples affections for a while cause I don’t think ER=EPR will ever make this area intuitively obvious.

Oh no, I tend to disagree. If ER = EPR happens to be correct, then the equivalence between the two faster than light phenomena wormholes and “spooky action at a distance” not only makes intuitive sense but also unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity based on that other great unification the AdS/CFT correspondence. It even ties in way back with Sakharov’s work on unification.

The result would be form of TOE that doesn’t require even a single real particle outside of the standard model of physics.

In other words, if true then this is big , as big as E=Mc².

I agree absolutely just think that actually comprehending the material is more challenging than GR.

Instantons specifically are the challenge. As you say wormholes and entanglement should, intuitively, be connected. Trying to provide functional description for that bridge is a boggler, at least from my position. Very exciting though.

:)

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Oh no, I tend to disagree. If ER = EPR happens to be correct, then the equivalence between the two faster than light phenomena wormholes and “spooky action at a distance” not only makes intuitive sense but also unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity based on that other great unification the AdS/CFT correspondence. It even ties in way back with Sakharov’s work on unification.

The result would be form of TOE that doesn’t require even a single real particle outside of the standard model of physics.

In other words, if true then this is big , as big as E=Mc².

I agree absolutely just think that actually comprehending the material is more challenging than GR.

Instantons specifically are the challenge. As you say wormholes and entanglement should, intuitively, be connected. Trying to provide functional description for that bridge is a boggler, at least from my position. Very exciting though.

:)

Without yet having concisely absorbed the material you’ve found connected, I get the feeling that the nature of instantons aren’t even a big issue until you want to provide a gravity theory and then they are all up in your face taunting you with glimpses into other dimensions without telling you anything unless you have uber-detached observation skills.

Super cool subject for the die hard nerd of course…….

:D

One of the shortcomings of my old mind exercise is every time I found a junction in it I would have to go back to the beginning(which starts with BB pair production cascade) to define the branching.

Somewhere I will try ‘starting’ from with these instantons is particle fusion. The bridge an electron uses to fuse with a proton is fundamentally linked here and I suspect that heavy elements being of greater mass than their apparent parts also might find some definition.

If I can’t wrap my head around it functionally from that approach I’ll be at a loss I think.

Perhaps another way I can approach an understanding is to say: “An instanton is a topological defect in a field”.

The “field” can be either the gravitational field of General Relativity, or the Yang-Mills field of Quantum Field Theory. Thus we get get either an gravitational instanton or a quantum mechanics instanton, and ER = EPR is a statement that there is a bridge between the two different types of instanton.

As for what an instanton is, the best topological description I can think of so far is as follows. Apply a Wick rotation to a “field” in three space and one time dimension to turn it into a field on four spatial dimensions. A Wick rotation consists simply of replacing “time” by “i*time”. As an aside, Wick rotation is a cornerstone of lattice QCD. As another aside, a Wick rotation makes time space-like so that it can be transversed in both directions, which is what occurs naturally within a black hole.

A gravitational instanton is a solution to the mathematical problem of getting a non-trivial consistent solution in the far field, ie. a mapping of the far field (3-D space at a far boundary of local 4-D space created by the Wick rotation) onto itself that is not a rotation, reflection, or compression. Hence my statement above that an instanton is a weird mapping of 3-D to 3-D. A Yang-Mills instanton can be obtained from a minimisation of an integral containing an action (a path integral), that yields a result that the matrix F_ab that maps space onto itself is self dual.

Trying to further my understanding. An instanton would thus be analogous to a Yau-Calabi manifold in string theory that maps 6-D to 6-D. Perhaps.

Perhaps I can get a visual image of an instanton separating into two black holes using an analogy from fluid dynamics. In potential flow if you take a source (analogous to a white hole) and slowly bring it up next to a sink of the same strength (analogous to a black hole) then the flow lines approach those of what is called a “doublet”. A doublet resembles an instanton in that the infinite boundary is indistinguishable from zero flow, but the double is a topological defect like the source-sink of a white-black hole. A nice feature of the doublet is that the flow lines remain unchanged on swapping the identities of white hole and black hole, which occurs in real life as well.

A doublet/instanton then actually makes more sense than a single white-black hole because the integral of the flow through the infinite boundary of the doublet is zero whereas the integral of the flow through the infinite boundary of a sole white or black hole is nonzero.

Image. A black and white hole approach one another.

Forming a doublet/instanton.

Caveat: I may be wrong in any or all of the above.

mollwollfumble said:

Perhaps another way I can approach an understanding is to say: “An instanton is a topological defect in a field”.

Caveat: I may be wrong in any or all of the above.

My call, as a verbal description it’s fair and of more practical benefit than other definitions might allow.

Purely academic question. Doesn’t this unify GR and quantum by turning quantum into the detail of SR?

Following up on the doublet idea further.

If I change the gravitational field to an electrical field, the separation of a dipole into monopoles would be exactly equivalent to the formation of matter-antimatter pairs from the photon, and the process is reversible. I can say this because the defining feature of antimatter is opposite charge, not opposite mass or other quantum number. So, then, is a photon an example of an instanton? It might be worthwhile comparing the mathematical descriptions of each.

This brings us to the topic of entanglement. Are the particle and antiparticle generated by a photon entangled? And if so in what way? (Checks web, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39686/entangled-electron-positron-pair). “Does pair production guarantee the product electron and positron entangled?” “By conservation of angular momentum (which splits into non-relativistic orbital and spin components), and linear momentum, you find quite a complex entangled system.”

So far so good, but entanglement is far more general than that, for existence entangled spin states of two electrons, entangled polarisations of two photons. Even “collisions between two hard spheres”. I don’t understand entanglement, and from the three different mathematical answers on the link above, nobody else does either.

One step further, if I change the gravitational field to a magnetic field, the separation of a dipole into monopoles is the creation of Dirac magnetic monopoles. The magnetic field of a dipole always closely resembles a doublet.

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Naturally or constructed ?, don’t you need exotic matters to create one I wonder if that’s only possibly with advanced stellar engineering skills.

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Entanglement.

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

there is certainly no observational evidence, if that is what you mean…

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Entanglement.

Not a very useful answer if wormholes don’t actually exist.

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

there is certainly no observational evidence, if that is what you mean…

Would worm holes have a gravitational influence on surrounding matter so we could detect them indirectly or would we pretty much need to be in line of sight for when they opened (if that’s what they do) to observe them.

Postpocelipse said:

Purely academic question. Doesn’t this unify GR and quantum by turning quantum into the detail of SR?

Quantum already includes SR in its standard formulation. Quantum + SR = “Quantum Field Theory”, which includes but QED and QCD.

Quantum doesn’t include GR, and vice versa.

Because a GR wormhole is less common and less varied than quantum entanglement, perhaps it’s turning GR into a detail of quantum theory. Perhaps?

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Entanglement.

Not a very useful answer if wormholes don’t actually exist.

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Entanglement.

Not a very useful answer if wormholes don’t actually exist.

oops.

It may well turn out that the moniker ‘wormhole’ is somewhat misleading.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

there is certainly no observational evidence, if that is what you mean…

Would worm holes have a gravitational influence on surrounding matter so we could detect them indirectly or would we pretty much need to be in line of sight for when they opened (if that’s what they do) to observe them.

I’m not sure what you mean by “line of sight” but at the very least they should have an observable gravitational impact on surrounding mass

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

there is certainly no observational evidence, if that is what you mean…

Would worm holes have a gravitational influence on surrounding matter so we could detect them indirectly or would we pretty much need to be in line of sight for when they opened (if that’s what they do) to observe them.

I’m not sure what you mean by “line of sight” but at the very least they should have an observable gravitational impact on surrounding mass

I don’t think that follows in that the space a wormhole occupies is non-local.

Hang on, back up. Is this a ‘degree of entanglement’ question? Let’s say BB pair production cascade produces two fields of entangled particle/antiparticles. This fundamental entanglement dominates and minimises subsequent entanglement probability without actually ruling it out. Is this a case of which entangled first etc.?

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?

Entanglement.

Not a very useful answer if wormholes don’t actually exist.

That’s actually a darn good question, and good answer.

Black holes exist outside of GR equations, they can be formulated perfectly well even in Newtonian mechanics. Once the infalling particle in Newtonian mechanics exceeds the speed of light then it passes the event horizon.

As for whether wormholes actually exist, then until this thread I would have said “no, they don’t”. My reasoning was twofold, one reason is that the information paradox so nicely solved by Susskind tells us that because the event horizon separates the knowable from the unknowable, we can never know whether the interior of a black hole is a wormhole or not, so may as well use Occam’s razor to choose the simplest explanation that it isn’t a wormhole.

The second reason is that whereas a black hole can form from the collapse of a star, there is no physical way for a white hole to form, and a wormhole can’t exist without a white hole on the far end.

This thread changes that, because here we’re talking about wormholes that formed in the first instant after the big bang. Though I’m far from sure whether I should define “instant” as “less than 1 second” or “less than 10^-36 seconds”. So the collapse of stars in no longer an issue, and wormholes are created along with other seemingly impossible objects such as magnetic monopoles.

But that still leaves the original question unanswered. “Is there any evidence that wormholes actually exist outside of GR equations?”

Let’s rephrase that in a way that Bubblecar probably didn’t intend. Rephrase it as “can a Penrose diagram be generated by other sets of feasible mathematical equations, such as SR or QED?”

> Let’s rephrase that in a way that Bubblecar probably didn’t intend. Rephrase it as “can a Penrose diagram be generated by other sets of feasible mathematical equations, such as SR or QED?”

Was thinking about Penrose diagrams and just had a startling insight. A Penrose diagram (in GR) is very similar to a Feynman diagram (in quantum mechanics). Both types of diagrams display one time-like and one space-like coordinate. In both types of diagrams neither space nor time is displayed accurately. In the Penrose diagram this is because there is a transformation that maps space and time onto the page. In the Feynman diagram it is because the scales of space and time are arbitrary.

But don’t draw too much from that insight, the similarity may be pure coincidence.

Back to instantons. This diagram is interesting. But what does it mean? QGP = “quark-gluon-plasma”, CFL = “color superconductivity”, XSB = “hadrons”. A neutron star sits on the border between XSB and CFL.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Would worm holes have a gravitational influence on surrounding matter so we could detect them indirectly or would we pretty much need to be in line of sight for when they opened (if that’s what they do) to observe them.

I’m not sure what you mean by “line of sight” but at the very least they should have an observable gravitational impact on surrounding mass

I don’t think that follows in that the space a wormhole occupies is non-local.

that statement is nonsensical

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure what you mean by “line of sight” but at the very least they should have an observable gravitational impact on surrounding mass

I don’t think that follows in that the space a wormhole occupies is non-local.

that statement is nonsensical

just like the complete thread.

Posted this to physics forums:

Not sure whether this should be posted under GR, QM, Beyond the standard model, or Topology and analysis. I understand GR best so am posting here. I’m having trouble visualising the “instanton”. My limited understanding is that the instanton appears both in GR and QM, and has a role in the recent ER = EPR paper by Maldacena and Susskind. Also, from A. Zee’s book I understand that an instanton is a topological defect similar to a vortex and monopole.

I find the standard visualisation of an instanton, as a cuplike depression between a singularity and the outer universe, completely bewildering because it directly contradicts the classical picture of the Schwarzschild black hole in unmodified space-time coordinates, where an infalling particle heads towards infinite positive time at the event horizon and then reappears at an infinite negative time just inside the event horizon to move forward in time to hit the singularity a small positive time after approaching the BH. There is nothing even remotely like a cup-shape depression in the region between the outer universe and the singularity.

I also find the instanton illustrated as ring around the tightest part of a wormhole unconvincing, because the wormhole throat shrinks to zero when anything enters, so all that illustration shows is a point.

As a person with a PhD in classical fluid mechanics, I came up with the following possible visualisation of an instanton. The topological defect called the monopole/hedgehog/source/sink can be illustrated by “particle paths” = “flow lines” = “streamlines” in potential flow radiating from a central point singularity. The topological defect called a “vortex” can be illustrated by “particle paths” = “flow lines” = “streamlines” in potential flow circling a central point singularity.

Perhaps, if I understand it correctly, an instanton can be seen as a “source and sink” = “black hole and white hole” = “equal positive and negative charges” in extremely close proximity. In potential flow we call that the “doublet”. One feature that the doublet has in common with the instanton is that the integral of particle speed at infinity for the doublet and instanton is zero for both. This integral is not zero for either the sink or the vortex.

Typical illustrations are: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/112104118/lecture-21/images/fig21.5.gif , http://nptel.ac.in/courses/101103004/module3/lec7/images/3.png , http://web.mit.edu/fluids-modules/www/potential_flows/LecturesHTML/lec1011/img79.gif.

Is my idea reasonable? or daft?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure what you mean by “line of sight” but at the very least they should have an observable gravitational impact on surrounding mass

I don’t think that follows in that the space a wormhole occupies is non-local.

that statement is nonsensical

You obviously haven’t been reading the material lazy prick!

ChrispenEvan said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I don’t think that follows in that the space a wormhole occupies is non-local.

that statement is nonsensical

just like the complete thread.

nyaaww, CE’s been challenged again. The news is heartbreaking………….. as always……………

mollwollfumble said:

Posted this to physics forums:

Not sure whether this should be posted under GR, QM, Beyond the standard model, or Topology and analysis. I understand GR best so am posting here. I’m having trouble visualising the “instanton”. My limited understanding is that the instanton appears both in GR and QM, and has a role in the recent ER = EPR paper by Maldacena and Susskind. Also, from A. Zee’s book I understand that an instanton is a topological defect similar to a vortex and monopole.

I find the standard visualisation of an instanton, as a cuplike depression between a singularity and the outer universe, completely bewildering because it directly contradicts the classical picture of the Schwarzschild black hole in unmodified space-time coordinates, where an infalling particle heads towards infinite positive time at the event horizon and then reappears at an infinite negative time just inside the event horizon to move forward in time to hit the singularity a small positive time after approaching the BH. There is nothing even remotely like a cup-shape depression in the region between the outer universe and the singularity.
<<

OK. This is why I have to begin from BB singularity and the ‘fundamental’ instanton. Where ‘cup-like’ might represent a non-fundamental instanton I don’t think it can represent a fundamental for the following reason. Susskind made a wonderful argument with his ‘entangled BH’s’ scenario. This allows matter/antimatter lobes to the universe to be viewed similarly and what becomes obvious is that each ‘cuplike’ singlet of the fundamental doublet become opposite sides of the plane of each space.

>>

I also find the instanton illustrated as ring around the tightest part of a wormhole unconvincing, because the wormhole throat shrinks to zero when anything enters, so all that illustration shows is a point.
<<

I think this is somewhat accurate but in a minimally practical fashion. One useful observation here might be that nothing actually enters a wormhole but only accesses the vector it provides.

>>

As a person with a PhD in classical fluid mechanics, I came up with the following possible visualisation of an instanton. The topological defect called the monopole/hedgehog/source/sink can be illustrated by “particle paths” = “flow lines” = “streamlines” in potential flow radiating from a central point singularity. The topological defect called a “vortex” can be illustrated by “particle paths” = “flow lines” = “streamlines” in potential flow circling a central point singularity.

Perhaps, if I understand it correctly, an instanton can be seen as a “source and sink” = “black hole and white hole” = “equal positive and negative charges” in extremely close proximity. In potential flow we call that the “doublet”. One feature that the doublet has in common with the instanton is that the integral of particle speed at infinity for the doublet and instanton is zero for both. This integral is not zero for either the sink or the vortex.

Typical illustrations are: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/112104118/lecture-21/images/fig21.5.gif , http://nptel.ac.in/courses/101103004/module3/lec7/images/3.png , http://web.mit.edu/fluids-modules/www/potential_flows/LecturesHTML/lec1011/img79.gif.

Is my idea reasonable? or daft?

Overall I would say a reasonable ‘draft’ and somewhere to begin. Certainly not daft.

:)

I really can’t see any way to resolve the question without assuming matter/antimatter universes as inherent. And I have made the attempt at least to a limited degree only to be entirely confounded. Beginning with this assumption provides depth to an otherwise singularly 2 dimensional factor.

Postpocelipse said:

I really can’t see any way to resolve the question without assuming matter/antimatter universes as inherent. And I have made the attempt at least to a limited degree only to be entirely confounded. Beginning with this assumption provides depth to an otherwise singularly 2 dimensional factor.

Backs away slowly, keeping eye contact but not making any overtly aggressive movement

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

I really can’t see any way to resolve the question without assuming matter/antimatter universes as inherent. And I have made the attempt at least to a limited degree only to be entirely confounded. Beginning with this assumption provides depth to an otherwise singularly 2 dimensional factor.

Backs away slowly, keeping eye contact but not making any overtly aggressive movement

It’s a physics discussion. You could be backing into our experimental wormhole activator/accessor. I’d watch where you are going……….

:P

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

I really can’t see any way to resolve the question without assuming matter/antimatter universes as inherent. And I have made the attempt at least to a limited degree only to be entirely confounded. Beginning with this assumption provides depth to an otherwise singularly 2 dimensional factor.

Backs away slowly, keeping eye contact but not making any overtly aggressive movement

It’s a physics discussion. You could be backing into our experimental wormhole activator/accessor. I’d watch where you are going……….

:P

I’ll be carefullllllllllllllll

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Backs away slowly, keeping eye contact but not making any overtly aggressive movement

It’s a physics discussion. You could be backing into our experimental wormhole activator/accessor. I’d watch where you are going……….

:P

I’ll be carefullllllllllllllll

Reassuring sentiment but truth be told eyes are genuinely only useful for sub-wormhole dangers. At this point I don’t believe a wormhole gateway would have no visibility and could only be accessed by ‘travelling at it right’, however that turned out to occur.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

It’s a physics discussion. You could be backing into our experimental wormhole activator/accessor. I’d watch where you are going……….

:P

I’ll be carefullllllllllllllll

Reassuring sentiment but truth be told eyes are genuinely only useful for sub-wormhole dangers. At this point I don’t believe a wormhole gateway would have no visibility and could only be accessed by ‘travelling at it right’, however that turned out to occur.

Apologies for this, but with all the talk of wormholes I couldn’t resist.

It’s a physics discussion.

no, it isn’t.

ChrispenEvan said:

It’s a physics discussion.

no, it isn’t.

Dude how many keyboards do you go through? Or do you have some sort of bib to catch your drool?

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

You are a twit who includes himself in other peoples conversations without invite due to a lack of your own subject material or an personal integrity. Don’t pretend to yourself otherwise because your drivel is water off a ducks back here you chump-change armchair-bandit. Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you. It would be painful for you to be exposed as a venomous little cretin but it’s a necessary pain for you that will remove significant disturbance in the psyche of those you encounter.

Really bloke. You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

You are a twit who includes himself in other peoples conversations without invite due to a lack of your own subject material or an personal integrity. Don’t pretend to yourself otherwise because your drivel is water off a ducks back here you chump-change armchair-bandit. Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you. It would be painful for you to be exposed as a venomous little cretin but it’s a necessary pain for you that will remove significant disturbance in the psyche of those you encounter.

Really bloke. You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

Lol, you and him behind the bike shed at lunchtime.

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

Aaww shucks. Now I’m all mebarrassed. :P

You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

lol. you are a weak minded idiot. what will you do? firebomb me? you realise that using a carriage service to make threats is a federal offence? you should watch your step. you are already known to the police.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

You are a twit who includes himself in other peoples conversations without invite due to a lack of your own subject material or an personal integrity. Don’t pretend to yourself otherwise because your drivel is water off a ducks back here you chump-change armchair-bandit. Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you. It would be painful for you to be exposed as a venomous little cretin but it’s a necessary pain for you that will remove significant disturbance in the psyche of those you encounter.

Really bloke. You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

Lol, you and him behind the bike shed at lunchtime.

I got a cold and my kid got it off me so I’m a bit irritablised. :/

and you molly haven’t a clue either. you are a disgrace ton the science profession. some of the utter tripe you post here is embarrassing.

You’ve gone on the ignore list CE so if your last two posts are directed my way you’ll need to retrieve them by stabilising a wormhole and accessing your own bullshit dimension. Be careful that can be a one way trip……….

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

You are a twit who includes himself in other peoples conversations without invite due to a lack of your own subject material or an personal integrity. Don’t pretend to yourself otherwise because your drivel is water off a ducks back here you chump-change armchair-bandit. Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you. It would be painful for you to be exposed as a venomous little cretin but it’s a necessary pain for you that will remove significant disturbance in the psyche of those you encounter.

Really bloke. You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

Lol, you and him behind the bike shed at lunchtime.

Remember once the sexual tension is gone the show goes down hill

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

If my observations prove to have any credibility you are among those here who can take credit for teaching me the importance of sticking to First Principal. :)

;)

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

mollwollfumble if he’s holding you hostage and forcing you to post the above, post something else with help in it. eg
Hello Everyone Like Pasta Macaroni Everyday

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

Do you need sedation or something?

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

No, just a few tertiary level science and maths courses, an interest in the field and an appreciation for the scientific method.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

Do you need sedation or something?

Does it help if I point out that jumping into the middle of a conversation that started without you might mean your lack of comprehension is inherent to your assumptions?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Ummmmmm no..

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

No, just a few tertiary level science and maths courses, an interest in the field and an appreciation for the scientific method.

I’d say “chuckle’ but that would make your diddle twitch. Oh oops sorry………..

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

So is there some sort of committee you are attached to that gives that insight any relevance to err….. anything?

Do you need sedation or something?

Does it help if I point out that jumping into the middle of a conversation that started without you might mean your lack of comprehension is inherent to your assumptions?

You do understand that I can read, right?? And that the conversation is recorded in text in this very thread…

First Principal: First question first……. “where did all the anti-matter go?”

Is the answer to that “not important because thinking about an antimatter universe crashing on your head puckers your arse?”

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Do you need sedation or something?

Does it help if I point out that jumping into the middle of a conversation that started without you might mean your lack of comprehension is inherent to your assumptions?

You do understand that I can read, right?? And that the conversation is recorded in text in this very thread…

Do I? You haven’t demonstrated anything to convince me yet but I’m a rank amateur without comprehension or philosophy.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Does it help if I point out that jumping into the middle of a conversation that started without you might mean your lack of comprehension is inherent to your assumptions?

You do understand that I can read, right?? And that the conversation is recorded in text in this very thread…

Do I? You haven’t demonstrated anything to convince me yet but I’m a rank amateur without comprehension or philosophy.

Postie, we’ve had this conversation before… If you are truely interested in this stuff, do yourself a favour and go and do a few physics courses…

But be assured, reading a few articles and the odd wiki page isn’t “doing science”.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

You do understand that I can read, right?? And that the conversation is recorded in text in this very thread…

Do I? You haven’t demonstrated anything to convince me yet but I’m a rank amateur without comprehension or philosophy.

Postie, we’ve had this conversation before… If you are truely interested in this stuff, do yourself a favour and go and do a few physics courses…

But be assured, reading a few articles and the odd wiki page isn’t “doing science”.

Sorry bloke. Nothing much I’m overly concerned with in a lot of fields and I have my own concerns at this point that take precedent. I’ve had a particular specific interest that has happened to been given conversational substance through the kind efforts of Dr Susskind and has provided moll and myself a resolution to that particular aspect of the question. If he or anyone else has no more questions I can provide some form of resolvable coherence to I am personally over the question as it stands. Having become familiar with the concept of an antimatter universe crashing on my head I am genuinely a littel over the subject and it eludes me at this moment as to why I am entertaining your sceptic club interrogation while I should be convalescing with this flu I’ve picked up.

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

+1

:((

macx

macx said:

The fact that you are a scientist that works for our national science organisation and you think this is “brilliant physics” makes me extremely worried about the state of professional science in this country.

+1

:((

macx

Are you the chairman of diddle’s sceptic interrogation unit? Anything else to add?

“Are you the chairman of diddle’s sceptic interrogation unit?”

Nope. But as a taxpayer I contribute to the wages!

:)

macx

macx said:

“Are you the chairman of diddle’s sceptic interrogation unit?”

Nope. But as a taxpayer I contribute to the wages!

:)

macx

Must take balls like gold/titanium alloy.

hi macx.

I think Moll might be one of the 500 scientists that CSIRO shed to allow for 500 chaplains in schools under Tony Abbotts restructure of education.

Good evening tauto. From whence have you materialised?

Postpocelipse said:

Good evening tauto. From whence have you materialised?

—

My parents.

tauto said:

Postpocelipse said:

Good evening tauto. From whence have you materialised?

—

My parents.

Sage. Wish them well for me I guess.

Credit where credit is due moll, it appears that assuming 3 dimensional space is a projection of a 2 dimensional barrier makes ‘spacetime’ quite apparently ‘cup-like’.

……. as flat as it might appear…………

from measuring a particle………….

I’m off to inspect the flanging of your hypothetical cup from the safety of the state induced by physical fatigue, moll. Meet you back in the tea leaves tomoz-iSpoze. I’ll try not venturi off…………

:P

Got a candidate catchphrase for your fan-shirts. Stick that in your suction cup and either entangle it or teleport it!(Your choice not mine of course..)

Postpocelipse said:

:P

Got a candidate catchphrase for your fan-shirts moll. Stick that in your suction cup and either entangle it or teleport it!(Your choice not mine of course..)

*fixed…

Does it help to analogise the problem as “space is analogue-particles are digital” moll?

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

And don’t even bother taking that personally cause you are evidently a bunch of closet arse-suckers I accidentally got ….. errr…. glued to looking for an intellect with basic fucking understanding. OVER THE LOT OF “Y’ALL”

Have a nice daze. However long that lasts chumps………..

take the meds postie, you’re not making sense. not that you ever do…

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

Thanks dude you kind of proved my point

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

Fuckin pathetic condescending “CERTIFICATE HOLDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Fuck you all and your two bit pretensions. Is that just my flu speaking or are you all a bunch of fukkwitted CUNTS?

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

Thanks dude you kind of proved my point

No dipshit you proved your own pointlessness being here. NOW FUCK OFF>

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse you know it doesn’t help that its very hard to work out what you are talking about most of the time.
You come across as a bit out there and whilst it doesn’t worry me I talk to anyone on this forum regardless of what others think about them it probably means people don’t take you seriously even if what you say has merit (or not).

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

!http://memeshappen.com/media/created/What-is-your-major-malfunction-meme-22241.jpg

Fuckwits injecting themselves into other peoples conversations. Anything else obvious you want me to repeat for your disability pension benefits?

The only reason you all haven’t already choked is the nuts you suck on to replace your safety blankies are shrivelled and impotent.

Now who the fuck is going to return to the thread topic. Oh that is right just the two who began the conversation. So I repeat to everyone else. Your contributions are and always have been of absolute zero value SO FUCK RIGHT OFF IMBECILES!@

Who the fuck put the idiotic idea in your heads I came “to you” (OMG still my beating heart!!!) FOR VALIDATION??? You are patently obviously circle-jerk idiots who found a nice public arena to soggy your sao’s. YOU ARE FUCKIN NOBODY“S TO ANY CUNT!!!

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Who the fuck is even talking to you or anyone except moll? Go fuck yourself and whatever you think. I’m just rolling a common problem round with a friend so I repeat to EVERYONE, couldn’t give a shit what you anything………..

!http://memeshappen.com/media/created/What-is-your-major-malfunction-meme-22241.jpg

Fuckwits injecting themselves into other peoples conversations. Anything else obvious you want me to repeat for your disability pension benefits?

It’s not a private conversation though anyone anywhere can read it

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

!http://memeshappen.com/media/created/What-is-your-major-malfunction-meme-22241.jpg

Fuckwits injecting themselves into other peoples conversations. Anything else obvious you want me to repeat for your disability pension benefits?

It’s not a private conversation though anyone anywhere can read it

Seeing as ONLY moll and I have discussed the topic I’m sorry but it is a private conversation as your own ignorance has ruled out your inclusion. ANYTHING FUCKING ELSE OBVIOUS YOU WANT POINTED OUT MORON?

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Fuckwits injecting themselves into other peoples conversations. Anything else obvious you want me to repeat for your disability pension benefits?

It’s not a private conversation though anyone anywhere can read it

Seeing as ONLY moll and I have discussed the topic I’m sorry but it is a private conversation as your own ignorance has ruled out your inclusion. ANYTHING FUCKING ELSE OBVIOUS YOU WANT POINTED OUT MORON?

I contributed points to the thread earlier on, surely anyone is allowed to contribute no matter who started the topic.

These wormholes are micro/minute in nature I assume, perhaps only wormholes of that size can exist

Postpocelipse said:

Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you.

… come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

I’d love to see Postpoc meet Boris IRL.

memo to trolls: This thread is a physics topic. Personal anecdotes involving your unqualified opinion on psychiatric subjects are erroneous and fallacious in there intentions with being supplied to this topic. You no longer exist AFAIC. If the result of that is that you feel less existential that is none of my concern and I wish you all the best in re-establishing your substantiality. Even if you manage to keep yourself to the topic from here you will not be engaged with further by myself and you will have to resolve any questions of genuine relevance to the OP through your own effort. Continuing to supply your layman disrespect to genuinely qualified individuals such as mollwollfumble will simply have to be your own private little obsession forthwith……….

Divine Angel said:

Postpocelipse said:

Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you.

… come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

I’d love to see Postpoc meet Boris IRL.

No I absolutely promise you would not nor would you ever forget it…………..

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

Postpocelipse said:

Seriously bloke, if you want to continue this direction of yours we need to meet face to face and resolve your little issue for you.

… come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

I’d love to see Postpoc meet Boris IRL.

No I absolutely promise you would not nor would you ever forget it…………..

Mercy is for the innocent.

i love forums where you can comment on whatever you like regardless of what some dullard may think.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

I’d love to see Postpoc meet Boris IRL.

No I absolutely promise you would not nor would you ever forget it…………..

Mercy is for the innocent.

CE is no better than Trump in my estimation. My personal feeling about these types of clown involves public execution. Which is why I’m not a lawyer……..

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

No I absolutely promise you would not nor would you ever forget it…………..

Mercy is for the innocent.

CE is no better than Trump in my estimation. My personal feeling about these types of clown involves public execution. Which is why I’m not a lawyer……..

In all reality he is just a vicious clown reminiscent of Pennywise………

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

No I absolutely promise you would not nor would you ever forget it…………..

Mercy is for the innocent.

CE is no better than Trump in my estimation. My personal feeling about these types of clown involves public execution. Which is why I’m not a lawyer……..

yeah, but you are an idiot so your “estimation” is worthless. just like your “physics”.

ChrispenEvan said:

i love forums where you can comment on whatever you like regardless of what some dullard may think.

Otherwise what’s the point

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i love forums where you can comment on whatever you like regardless of what some dullard may think.

Otherwise what’s the point

Exactly, that’s why I’m not on the SSSF Facebook page. What I say there would have to satisfy rules of both relevance and political correctness.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i love forums where you can comment on whatever you like regardless of what some dullard may think.

Otherwise what’s the point

Exactly, that’s why I’m not on the SSSF Facebook page. What I say there would have to satisfy rules of both relevance and political correctness.

you do post there.

and yes we do have rules and they are enforced.

Nice to see macx peeping in :)

I should have said hi in Chat but I was distracted.

ChrispenEvan said:

and yes we do have rules and they are enforced.

No wonder I refuse to join!

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

and yes we do have rules and they are enforced.

No wonder I refuse to join!

well i am a proper gatekeeper there. with a uniform and all. i feel special.

one of the funny aspects of the sssf fb page is that posters think they can get away with making claims and not backing them up when asked. they then get shits on and leave. we have only had to actually block some when they got abusive.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

and yes we do have rules and they are enforced.

No wonder I refuse to join!

what’s a facebook group?

ChrispenEvan said:

You want to keep going come and visit me and we’ll settle your difference permanently.

lol. you are a weak minded idiot. what will you do? firebomb me? you realise that using a carriage service to make threats is a federal offence? you should watch your step. you are already known to the police.

You are the weak minded idiot if you think you understand my relationship with the police arse-sucking idiot you are. I didn’t make a threat fart-stick, I made you an offer to resolve your issue permanently. Would it help you to understand that 2 of the 3 security members involved in your so-called incident no longer work in security(they are now construction labourers) and at least one police officer who has crossed my path was not an officer shortly after our encounter?

Facts are such trivial things you just don’t need to include them in these assessments though, do you?

To return (hopefully permanently) to the OP, pretty keen to see your progress moll. I like where you have taken this very much. :)

Postpocelipse said:

To return (hopefully permanently) to the OP, pretty keen to see your progress moll. I like where you have taken this very much. :)

What is exciting is that plotting your cup-like instanton in the fundamental 2d plane you must retain the cup-like element and assume a high tension periphery and low tension body which I think is reversible depending on the field being plotted(EM/gravity).

This appears to allow space for DM to exist that is gravitationally bound but entirely separated in EM forcing.

Super simple and neat at least as a mental exercise. I love it.

:)

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

To return (hopefully permanently) to the OP, pretty keen to see your progress moll. I like where you have taken this very much. :)

What is exciting is that plotting your cup-like instanton in the fundamental 2d plane you must retain the cup-like element and assume a high tension periphery and low tension body which I think is reversible depending on the field being plotted(EM/gravity).

This appears to allow space for DM to exist that is gravitationally bound but entirely separated in EM forcing.

Super simple and neat at least as a mental exercise. I love it.

:)

Has me thinking there is a good chance DM’s nature can be definitively isolated with a little further enquiry.

hhmmmm… could a super-fast spin rate put DM beyond the effect of the visible UEM?

Postpocelipse said:

To return (hopefully permanently) to the OP, pretty keen to see your progress moll. I like where you have taken this very much. :)

I’m blushing. I still have a very limited understanding. :-)
I’m startled by your greater knowledge.
In the past only Cusp could out-BB me and only Macx could out-GR me, and even then I could probably out-TOE them both.

One thing I’m trying to get me head around is whether ER=EPR counts as a theory of everything (TOE) or not. I simply don’t know.

Another thing I’m trying to get my head around is how entanglement of polarisations of photons and spins of electrons can possibly tie in with this. If a photon is thought of as an instanton that can give rise to particle-antiparticle pairs (in the same way that an instanton can give rise to black-hole-white-hole pairs) then entanglement of photon polarisations becomes an instanton that entangles two instantons.

That’s actually not too bad, because a doublet in which each half is itself a doublet is simply a quadrupole, which is well known from magnetic fields (eg. of the Earth and of the focussing magnets of an accelerator).

Let’s follow that further, if I treat polarisation as a vortex … It’s more complicated than that, circular polarisation can be treated as a vortex but not linear polarisation … but ignoring that complication, and also making the extra simplification that an electron spin can be visualised as a vortex (an irrotational vortex has an integrated spin which is independent of radius).

Then consider a doublet in which each component is a vortex. As you bring two equal and opposite vortices together then you get a doublet that … OK, let me explain it this way. A source/monopole/black-hole is, in the two dimensions that I’m visualizing, the dual of a vortex. So bringing two vortices together results in the dual of the doublet. A doublet is self dual, so bringing two vortices together results in a doublet identical to that of a wormhole.

The duality breaks down in real 3-D space, but holds in the 2-D plane I’m using for visualization.

For an image of the doublet and how it is equivalent to its dual, see http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/fprops/poten/doublet.gif

If source and sink approach from right and left then you get a doublet with circular lobes top and bottom. If a vortex and opposite-spinning vortex approach from right and left you get a doublet with circular lobes left and right.

Going even further out on an indefensible limb. A 3-D doublet looks a bit like a P orbital, and a doublet of a doublet like a D orbital. A bit, this works for source/monopole/black-hole but not for vortex. Or to bring it back to reality, look at the below image of a P orbital as if it was a wormhole with one lobe being the entrance and the other lobe being the exit.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

To return (hopefully permanently) to the OP, pretty keen to see your progress moll. I like where you have taken this very much. :)

I’m blushing. I still have a very limited understanding. :-)
I’m startled by your greater knowledge.
In the past only Cusp could out-BB me and only Macx could out-GR me, and even then I could probably out-TOE them both.

It would appear that the sanity bending difficulty I had with my mental exercise is that it was illustrating instantons specifically without giving me any way to recognise what I was looking at. Now Susskind has supplied his link and you informed me of the shape of an instanton the exercise is no longer jammed and has started moving again. Nice and slowly this time so I can plot things against your feedback. Really cool stuff. I’m wrapped.

I think once I go through all the material you’ve brought to the thread methodically I may even be able to adjust my language for greater comprehensibility. Love it.

:)

A rule I had to follow to maintain the integrity of the exercise was to eliminate non-fundamentals from it. To do this I had to read through existing material, identify the fundamentals included and then mentally dump the rest of the information. Since I have some sentimental attachment to information this was a somewhat distressing process but has now struck pay-dirt so I no longer have to dump information that I am not certain is directly related. Studying physics is now relaxing rather than the high tension activity it has been previously. I’m smiling more.

;)

I’ve “bumped” your thread in physics forum moll.

:-)

Moll I second the “topological defect” analogy seeing as all this information is demanding that pair production be cavitation of 2d space.

ChrispenEvan said:

I’ve “bumped” your thread in physics forum moll.

:-)

I’ll take that personally also. Thanks.

This is getting AWESOME!!!

:P

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I second the “topological defect” analogy seeing as all this information is demanding that pair production be cavitation of 2d space.

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:

“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

mollwollfumble said:

From the recent “cool horizons for entangled black holes” paper.

“It is very tempting to think that any EPR correlated system is connected by some sort of ER
bridge, although in general the bridge may be a highly quantum object that is yet to be
independently defined. Indeed, we speculate that even the simple singlet state of two spins
is connected by a (very quantum) bridge of this type.”

Hmm, I see, Susskind is proposing a quantum wormhole. That’s new.

OK. This is where some confusion might be removed. If all fundamental particles have to be entangled with their antiparticle to maintain the pairings cavitation of space then the particle is as much ‘hole’ as you have to worm your way round with. A particle is as much white-hole as can be maintained and relative longevity(length of cavitation) is it’s output constant. 2 dimensional space is a bridge but should not be identified as the wormhole.

So I think the question here might be ‘quantify the attributes of 2 dimensional space’?

Postpocelipse said:

So I think the question here might be ‘quantify the attributes of 2 dimensional space’?

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

So I think the question here might be ‘quantify the attributes of 2 dimensional space’?

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

So I think the question here might be ‘quantify the attributes of 2 dimensional space’?

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

Completely, but only because the condensate on half represents the Euler identity of the point function that describes the nonliterary of the quantum field itself.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

Completely, but only because the condensate on half represents the Euler identity of the point function that describes the nonliterary of the quantum field itself.

I am unfamiliar with that material.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

So I think the question here might be ‘quantify the attributes of 2 dimensional space’?

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

As obscure as that might appear the answer is probably “instanton”.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

Completely, but only because the condensate on half represents the Euler identity of the point function that describes the nonliterary of the quantum field itself.

Or in simpler terms :- “One with the lot please mate”

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Aside from “non-local”. Although clarifying what that means might indicate the answer.

I think the rule here would be to assume 3 dimensional space is a particle only. Any ‘space’ in the universe not being acted on by particles can’t be considered 3 dimensional. It is a void that has collapsed to a 2 dimensional form. Does that translate as ‘what is the mean state of quantum foam’?

As obscure as that might appear the answer is probably “instanton”.

So what is the shape of the instanton cup moll?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I second the “topological defect” analogy seeing as all this information is demanding that pair production be cavitation of 2d space.

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I second the “topological defect” analogy seeing as all this information is demanding that pair production be cavitation of 2d space.

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

none of the theories you describe is a TOE

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

none of the theories you describe is a TOE

Let alone a FOOT

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

none of the theories you describe is a TOE

:-)

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. What a bastardisation of science.

ChrispenEvan said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

none of the theories you describe is a TOE

:-)

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. What a bastardisation of science.

steven hawking would be rolling in his grave…

Have others noticed how postie grabs any new physics word he has never heard of before and weaves it into his “theories”.

stumpy_seahorse said:

steven hawking would be rolling in his grave…

…were he not still alive, if not quite kicking.

maybe Stephen is just spinning in his wheelchair.

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

steven hawking would be rolling in his grave…

…were he not still alive, if not quite kicking.

He’s alive and well in The Simpsons: Tapped Out right now.

I suppose you can create all the mathematics you like for these suggestions (can they be called theories) but until you can at least match some of it with real life observations that are more philosophy on the structure of reality.

• It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I second the “topological defect” analogy seeing as all this information is demanding that pair production be cavitation of 2d space.

And to provide some answer to your earlier enquiry, this is looking TOE-like. Having never observed a TOE in the wild I cannot rule out I may be wrong.

;)

:-)

I’ve observed many TOEs in the wild, 4, um 5, 6, more, less? But usually at a distance where I couldn’t distinguish between a warthog and an elephant (they’re both grey, right?)

There’s string theory, first time I read though it I hardly understood anything, second time was better. Then M theory, supergravity. M theory is based on string theory is based on supergravity. I’ve read two different ways in which string theory interacts with black holes to prevent wormholes. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist. There is at least one version of string theory that doesn’t rely on supersymmetry, but it’s a very artificial construct.

Then there is Loop Quantum Gravity, which I haven’t had much time for.

I could mention Einstein’s attempts at a TOE using the theory of connection, and a reformulation of GR using a space-time that is discontinuous on the Planck scale, and a GR based on the even more abstract definition of space-time generated by Schild’s ladder.

And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

Is Lisi’s 8-D model of fundamental subatomic particles a TOE or just GUT? I forget.

Then we get on to paths towards a TOE that more closely resembles ER=EPR. Sakharov’s view of gravitation as an elasticity in space, the Unruh effect and Unruh radiation, Hawking’s calculation of the interaction of a black hole and a quantum vacuum, the CFT/AdS correspondence.

And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

steven hawking would be rolling in his grave…

…were he not still alive, if not quite kicking.

pfft…

i’ve seen weekend at bernie’s…

mollwollfumble said:

But which of these objects that I’ve glimpsed in the wild are elephants and which are warthogs? I don’t know.

should’ve gone to specsavers…

ChrispenEvan said:

Have others noticed how postie grabs any new physics word he has never heard of before and weaves it into his “theories”.

While that may be the case, his discussion with moll is being confined to a relevant thread, and I think those of us who are not interested could courteously leave them to it without trashing their conversation.

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

steven hawking would be rolling in his grave…

…were he not still alive, if not quite kicking.

He’s the Davros of astrophysics.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Have others noticed how postie grabs any new physics word he has never heard of before and weaves it into his “theories”.

While that may be the case, his discussion with moll is being confined to a relevant thread, and I think those of us who are not interested could courteously leave them to it without trashing their conversation.

Nah.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Have others noticed how postie grabs any new physics word he has never heard of before and weaves it into his “theories”.

While that may be the case, his discussion with moll is being confined to a relevant thread, and I think those of us who are not interested could courteously leave them to it without trashing their conversation.

Nah.

Actually, yes. There’s more than one kind of troll, Boris.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Have others noticed how postie grabs any new physics word he has never heard of before and weaves it into his “theories”.

While that may be the case, his discussion with moll is being confined to a relevant thread, and I think those of us who are not interested could courteously leave them to it without trashing their conversation.

Nah.

posty does well enough trashing his own threads…

(usually in the OP…)

>. But supergravity depends on supersymmetric which the LHC has proven doesn’t exist.

Supersymmetry not supersymmetric.

> And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

CDT not CFT.

> And to top it off, the formulation of both QM and GM using the theory of sponsors.

Spinors, not Sponsors.

Too many spelling errors. Fixed three.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

While that may be the case, his discussion with moll is being confined to a relevant thread, and I think those of us who are not interested could courteously leave them to it without trashing their conversation.

Nah.

Actually, yes. There’s more than one kind of troll, Boris.

don’t care. i like science. that is the only excuse i need.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Nah.

Actually, yes. There’s more than one kind of troll, Boris.

don’t care. i like science. that is the only excuse i need.

Then post science in your own threads. We don’t need unnecessary shitfights in the HF. We’ve all made our views clear in this thread and can now safely leave them to their own devices.

This isn’t SSSF, no impressionable youngsters are likely to be led astray :)

All these theories are almost like religion but with mathematical formula to back it up.
Imagine you dedicate your life to one of them and then another one is proven (as much as you can prove something in science) and everything you thought was correct wasn’t

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Nah.

Actually, yes. There’s more than one kind of troll, Boris.

don’t care. i like science. that is the only excuse i need.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

Actually, yes. There’s more than one kind of troll, Boris.

don’t care. i like science. that is the only excuse i need.

Then post science in your own threads. We don’t need unnecessary shitfights in the HF. We’ve all made our views clear in this thread and can now safely leave them to their own devices.

This isn’t SSSF, no impressionable youngsters are likely to be led astray :)

what part of “don’t care” don’t you understand?

Cymek said:

All these theories are almost like religion but with mathematical formula to back it up.
Imagine you dedicate your life to one of them and then another one is proven (as much as you can prove something in science) and everything you thought was correct wasn’t

every scientist, every day, is trying to prove themselves wrong… it’s their job…

it’s not a dedication to a ‘pet theory’ per se, it’s a dedication to a objective process of understanding.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

All these theories are almost like religion but with mathematical formula to back it up.
Imagine you dedicate your life to one of them and then another one is proven (as much as you can prove something in science) and everything you thought was correct wasn’t

every scientist, every day, is trying to prove themselves wrong… it’s their job…

it’s not a dedication to a ‘pet theory’ per se, it’s a dedication to a objective process of understanding.

At some point though can you call your understanding of something complete

ChrispenEvan said:

what part of “don’t care” don’t you understand?

So why not confine your posting to forums that you do actually care about?

You enjoy this kind of conflict, many contributors don’t.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

All these theories are almost like religion but with mathematical formula to back it up.
Imagine you dedicate your life to one of them and then another one is proven (as much as you can prove something in science) and everything you thought was correct wasn’t

every scientist, every day, is trying to prove themselves wrong… it’s their job…

it’s not a dedication to a ‘pet theory’ per se, it’s a dedication to a objective process of understanding.

At some point though can you call your understanding of something complete

It comes down to diminishing returns… but still, I’d argue no…

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what part of “don’t care” don’t you understand?

So why not confine your posting to forums that you do actually care about?

You enjoy this kind of conflict, many contributors don’t.

If people want to post on a public forum then they need to accept that they only open themselves to public critique.

This isn’t a private discussion space.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what part of “don’t care” don’t you understand?

So why not confine your posting to forums that you do actually care about?

You enjoy this kind of conflict, many contributors don’t.

i remember not that long ago when you were trying to troll DV about being religious.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what part of “don’t care” don’t you understand?

So why not confine your posting to forums that you do actually care about?

You enjoy this kind of conflict, many contributors don’t.

i remember not that long ago when you were trying to troll DV about being religious.

No. I merely expressed annoyance at such an unexpected and (to me) disappointing revelation. I haven’t mentioned it since.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

So why not confine your posting to forums that you do actually care about?

You enjoy this kind of conflict, many contributors don’t.

i remember not that long ago when you were trying to troll DV about being religious.

No. I merely expressed annoyance at such an unexpected and (to me) disappointing revelation. I haven’t mentioned it since.

of course you did bubblecar. i believe you.

diddly-squat said:

If people want to post on a public forum then they need to accept that they only open themselves to public critique.

This isn’t a private discussion space.

True, but few people in this thread are offering any detailed criticism of what posty & moll are saying, they’re just rolling their eyes, over and over again. Once is enough :)

Threads like this are easy enough to ignore unless people are visiting HF for the sake of conducting shitfights.

Threads like this are easy enough to ignore…

hmmmmm irony much.

ChrispenEvan said:

Threads like this are easy enough to ignore…

hmmmmm irony much.

I know you hate being told off Boris, but sometimes it’s called for :)

and i know you think yourself somehow better than most here and don’t like being reminded you aren’t.

So does what’s been discussed actually have merit because most of what they are saying doesn’t make sense to me but that could be because I’m a tard.

Cymek said:

So does what’s been discussed actually have merit because most of what they are saying doesn’t make sense to me but that could be because I’m a tard.

It isn’t science.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

So does what’s been discussed actually have merit because most of what they are saying doesn’t make sense to me but that could be because I’m a tard.

It isn’t science.

basically moll has lost the plot and postie never had it.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

So does what’s been discussed actually have merit because most of what they are saying doesn’t make sense to me but that could be because I’m a tard.

It isn’t science.

But realistically it’s still a thought exercise throwing out ideas valid or not, it’s not really doing any harm.

Cymek said:

So does what’s been discussed actually have merit because most of what they are saying doesn’t make sense to me but that could be because I’m a tard.

no, the discussion is largely a series of drawn out, random-word, generated phrases…

it is just making shit up by putting certain words into a sentence. there is nothing that has any merit.

snap!!

mollwollfumble said:

> And causal dynamical triangulation, which is completely different. I have a soft spot for this CFT, even though (or perhaps because) it concludes that space is not three dimensional.

The reasoning for that conclusion may be significant.

diddly-squat said:

If people want to post on a public forum then they need to accept that they only open themselves to public critique.

This isn’t a private discussion space.

No they open the subject to public critique. You folk are capable of nothing more than personal abuse. You may as well be Trumpers. “Fuckwits” hardly comes close as a description.

If you compare the 2 dimensional plot of an instanton cup to that of a galactic plane with a CSMBH, doesn’t it correspond that the CSMBH’s EH provides the centre of the galaxy a low gravitational tension while the periphery is under relatively higher tension, moll?

Have a look at this and see if you are up to the understanding required:

//books.google.com.au/books?id=CnsbCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=instanton+cup&source=bl&ots=kTvNgcDgaE&sig=7cDP5_wAJIej8ITAiumqSRLOpOc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim6cjq8NnOAhUCmZQKHTviCuMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=instanton%20cup&f=false

tauto said:

Have a look at this and see if you are up to the understanding required:

//books.google.com.au/books?id=CnsbCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=instanton+cup&source=bl&ots=kTvNgcDgaE&sig=7cDP5_wAJIej8ITAiumqSRLOpOc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim6cjq8NnOAhUCmZQKHTviCuMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=instanton%20cup&f=false

Thanks tauto. So far I’m following the intention. I’ll let you know if I can get more than that out of it.

Could use some clarification on what is illustrated by the Bott Periodicity Theorem

Postpocelipse said:

Could use some clarification on what is illustrated by the Bott Periodicity Theorem

Homotopy is a very helpful word in this subject. Exactly what is being stated about this factor in BPT I’m not certain I’m getting.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Could use some clarification on what is illustrated by the Bott Periodicity Theorem

Homotopy is a very helpful word in this subject. Exactly what is being stated about this factor in BPT I’m not certain I’m getting.

What I am gleaning from it is that a transiton is a vari-directional kinetic capacitor.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Could use some clarification on what is illustrated by the Bott Periodicity Theorem

Homotopy is a very helpful word in this subject. Exactly what is being stated about this factor in BPT I’m not certain I’m getting.

What I am gleaning from it is that a transiton is a vari-directional kinetic capacitor.

As far as I might get on this tonight might be to suggest that transitons likely provide/define the initial bridge in a lightning discharge.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:

“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:

“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

homotopy is a property of a function, it doesn’t have a radius

An instanton is a classical solution in quantum theory, an example of an instanton in quantum theory is Hawking Radiation

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

homotopy is a property of a function, it doesn’t have a radius

An instanton is a classical solution in quantum theory, an example of an instanton in quantum theory is Hawking Radiation

You haven’t understood the question I’m afraid.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

homotopy is a property of a function, it doesn’t have a radius

An instanton is a classical solution in quantum theory, an example of an instanton in quantum theory is Hawking Radiation

You haven’t understood the question I’m afraid.

nonsensical statements tend to have that effect

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

homotopy is a property of a function, it doesn’t have a radius

An instanton is a classical solution in quantum theory, an example of an instanton in quantum theory is Hawking Radiation

You haven’t understood the question I’m afraid.

The energy of the pair production and the subsequent in-falling photons is related to the polarisation of the out-falling photons. Defining the energy and polarisation of Hawking radiation should provide the limitations within that homotopic relationship.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

homotopy is a property of a function, it doesn’t have a radius

An instanton is a classical solution in quantum theory, an example of an instanton in quantum theory is Hawking Radiation

You haven’t understood the question I’m afraid.

nonsensical statements tend to have that effect

If you say so. I would sooner believe that your own reluctance to investigate is at fault.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

You haven’t understood the question I’m afraid.

nonsensical statements tend to have that effect

If you say so. I would sooner believe that your own reluctance to investigate is at fault.

Based on the evidence that you believe I made a statement when I had only asked moll a question.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:
“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”
<<
<<
<<
<<

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

The energy of the pair production and the subsequent in-falling photons is related to the polarisation of the out-falling photons. Defining the energy and polarisation of Hawking radiation should provide the limitations within that homotopic relationship.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:
“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”
<<
<<
<<
<<

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

The energy of the pair production and the subsequent in-falling photons is related to the polarisation of the out-falling photons. Defining the energy and polarisation of Hawking radiation should provide the limitations within that homotopic relationship.

You mentioned switching fields on an instanton moll. Isn’t Hawking radiation an example of gravitationally induced instanton while lightning discharge might be an example of charge induced instanton?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:
“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”
<<
<<
<<
<<

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

If this is a resolution then it has to provide a graph of the instanton created by Hawking radiation.

At least as far as radius of homotopy?

The energy of the pair production and the subsequent in-falling photons is related to the polarisation of the out-falling photons. Defining the energy and polarisation of Hawking radiation should provide the limitations within that homotopic relationship.

You mentioned switching fields on an instanton moll. Isn’t Hawking radiation an example of gravitationally induced instanton while lightning discharge might be an example of charge induced instanton?

The further observation here might be that an instanton that is induced by charge converts to mass while one produced by mass converts to charge?

Bit late her again, got carried away playing computer games, then decided to watch Al Jazeera news before turning in. It is a much better news service than the usual commercial ones here and if you consider it to be prejudiced it is at least an insight into the other sides propoganda messages and indicates areas of interest. Hehehehe.

AwesomeO said:

Bit late her again, got carried away playing computer games, then decided to watch Al Jazeera news before turning in. It is a much better news service than the usual commercial ones here and if you consider it to be prejudiced it is at least an insight into the other sides propoganda messages and indicates areas of interest. Hehehehe.

Oops. I return you to your sheduled program.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The energy of the pair production and the subsequent in-falling photons is related to the polarisation of the out-falling photons. Defining the energy and polarisation of Hawking radiation should provide the limitations within that homotopic relationship.

You mentioned switching fields on an instanton moll. Isn’t Hawking radiation an example of gravitationally induced instanton while lightning discharge might be an example of charge induced instanton?

The further observation here might be that an instanton that is induced by charge converts to mass while one produced by mass converts to charge?

As ‘topological defect’ provides a description of the instanton space, might the causality of an instanton be described as ‘parity regulation’?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:
“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”
<<
<<
<<
<<

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

To further clarify, is monogamy of entanglement an assumption and therefore there is no paradox? Possibly a particle cannot sustain dual polarisation entanglements, for instance, but I don’t understand a reason a photon cannot be entangled through more than one factor?

I could expand on the questions I raised following this one but would prefer to start with anything that would rule out any of the elements I’ve addressed, moll.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

For AMPS firewall paradox, Wikipedia has this:
“According to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a single emission of Hawking radiation involves two mutually entangled particles. The outgoing particle escapes and is emitted as a quantum of Hawking radiation; the infalling particle is swallowed by the black hole. Assume a black hole formed a finite time in the past and will fully evaporate away in some finite time in the future. Then, it will only emit a finite amount of information encoded within its Hawking radiation. Assume that at time t , more than half of the information had already been emitted. According to widely accepted research by physicists like Don Page and Leonard Susskind, an outgoing particle emitted at time t must be entangled with all the Hawking radiation the black hole has previously emitted. This creates a paradox: a principle called “monogamy of entanglement” requires that, like any quantum system, the outgoing particle cannot be fully entangled with two independent systems at the same time; yet here the outgoing particle appears to be entangled with both the infalling particle and, independently, with past Hawking radiation.”
<<
<<
<<
<<

Can this be resolved by assuming the particle pair entanglement is associated to the energy level of the photon production and the out-falling photon is entangled with previous emission through polarisation?

To further clarify, is monogamy of entanglement an assumption and therefore there is no paradox? Possibly a particle cannot sustain dual polarisation entanglements, for instance, but I don’t understand a reason a photon cannot be entangled through more than one factor?

I could expand on the questions I raised following this one but would prefer to start with anything that would rule out any of the elements I’ve addressed, moll.

I’ll note that dual entanglement might not be full entanglement under less extreme conditions but in the case of Hawking radiation the in-falling particles energy state is elevated beyond the gravitational threshold. This would suggest that the energy level of Hawking radiation is intrinsically embedded withing the universes global EM at the most fundamental level.

> To further clarify, is monogamy of entanglement an assumption and therefore there is no paradox? Possibly a particle cannot sustain dual polarisation entanglements, for instance, but I don’t understand a reason a photon cannot be entangled through more than one factor?

Good question.

If the material coming out of a wormhole is from another universe, then the firewall paradox implies that material from different universes is entangled, before it passes into each side of the wormhole. Seems unlikely. Be nice if we didn’t have that situation.

mollwollfumble said:

> To further clarify, is monogamy of entanglement an assumption and therefore there is no paradox? Possibly a particle cannot sustain dual polarisation entanglements, for instance, but I don’t understand a reason a photon cannot be entangled through more than one factor?

Good question.

If the material coming out of a wormhole is from another universe, then the firewall paradox implies that material from different universes is entangled, before it passes into each side of the wormhole. Seems unlikely. Be nice if we didn’t have that situation.

Pretty sure the photon is entirely produced within this universe and that our instantons are what separates any companion. It seems likely that even reflection of a photon off an atom would involve instantons and that this process is required to maintain separation between either fundamental entanglement.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

> To further clarify, is monogamy of entanglement an assumption and therefore there is no paradox? Possibly a particle cannot sustain dual polarisation entanglements, for instance, but I don’t understand a reason a photon cannot be entangled through more than one factor?

Good question.

If the material coming out of a wormhole is from another universe, then the firewall paradox implies that material from different universes is entangled, before it passes into each side of the wormhole. Seems unlikely. Be nice if we didn’t have that situation.

Pretty sure the photon is entirely produced within this universe and that our instantons are what separates any companion. It seems likely that even reflection of a photon off an atom would involve instantons and that this process is required to maintain separation between either fundamental entanglement.

You just made me realise why I got really sick of that mental exercise. Felt like I was holding both universes apart by sheer willpower while I had no name for an instanton. That’s funny. :)

I guess once you plot the shape of a Hawking radiation instanton you have some idea of the state the singularity region exists in and can define the 2 dimensional plane instantons work on, or something like that.

Postpocelipse said:

I guess once you plot the shape of a Hawking radiation instanton you have some idea of the state the singularity region exists in and can define the 2 dimensional plane instantons work on, or something like that.

Can you do “something like that”?

I’ll let you meet my kid if you can moll……

:D

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I guess once you plot the shape of a Hawking radiation instanton you have some idea of the state the singularity region exists in and can define the 2 dimensional plane instantons work on, or something like that.

Can you do “something like that”?

Course you don’t have to show me. Just tell me you’ve submitted it for review and it’s been accepted and you meet my kid. That much would be worth a quiet BBQ.

Could at least say thanks for the invite moll. I don’t just give away BBQ invites!

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I know how you feel. I can only come at it at all because that mind experiment I used has left me with a sense of up and down in about this specific area. I’m mostly just chuffed that someone else has apparently deciphered a substantial quantity of the material so I can absorb the subject without breaking my brain on that exercise.

Hehe. E=mc2 makes GR so neat. I get the feeling that it will remain in peoples affections for a while cause I don’t think ER=EPR will ever make this area intuitively obvious.

Oh no, I tend to disagree. If ER = EPR happens to be correct, then the equivalence between the two faster than light phenomena wormholes and “spooky action at a distance” not only makes intuitive sense but also unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity based on that other great unification the AdS/CFT correspondence. It even ties in way back with Sakharov’s work on unification.

The result would be form of TOE that doesn’t require even a single real particle outside of the standard model of physics.

This last gives me the impression you see the same thing in this I did which might put a different slant on DM, moll. Without a model of the mean instanton or 2d plane I’ve never been able to make any conclusions there of any definitive nature.

The desperate little word finding guy in my head has collapsed in a sobbing heap and is holding up a sign saying “just send me somewhere nice and quiet”.

:)

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

The hierarchy is kink to vortex to monopole to instanton.

<<
<<

I think this goes with that. As you’ve referenced there are distinct instantons and I’m guessing a Hawking radiation instanton should match a gravitational instanton.

>>
>>

Back to instantons. This diagram is interesting. But what does it mean? QGP = “quark-gluon-plasma”, CFL = “color superconductivity”, XSB = “hadrons”. A neutron star sits on the border between XSB and CFL.

This is some complex reading but better than holding annihilating universes apart with your imagination. There is probably some bruising on my brain…….

mollwollfumble said:

The hierarchy is kink to vortex to monopole to instanton.

<<
<<

A moment of time?

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

The hierarchy is kink to vortex to monopole to instanton.

<<
<<

A moment of time?

Maybe that should be ‘moment of space……

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

The hierarchy is kink to vortex to monopole to instanton.

<<
<<

A moment of time?

Maybe that should be ‘moment of space……

Basically that process is how I perceive an umolested bubble of quantum foam, which can be inflated in the case of a photon coordinating some EM interaction or collapsed to facilitate a mass interaction.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

<<
<<

A moment of time?

Maybe that should be ‘moment of space……

Basically that process is how I perceive an umolested bubble of quantum foam, which can be inflated in the case of a photon coordinating some EM interaction or collapsed to facilitate a mass interaction.

Which kinda makes a photon anti-particle a graviton. Doesn’t it?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Maybe that should be ‘moment of space……

Basically that process is how I perceive an umolested bubble of quantum foam, which can be inflated in the case of a photon coordinating some EM interaction or collapsed to facilitate a mass interaction.

Which kinda makes a photon anti-particle a graviton. Doesn’t it?

The content of this post was about as much information as I could keep in the back of my head to hold all the detail of that exercise together. Good to know I didn’t need much more cause it looks like much of the detail is addressed. Only thing that isn’t obvious so far is a description of the 2d plane that templates the two together. By the time I get through the material that might not be a requirement but it has tied detail together for me as a reference.

Postpocelipse said:

Kink – Vortex – Monopole – Instanton

Basically that process is how I perceive an umolested bubble of quantum foam, which can be inflated in the case of a photon coordinating some EM interaction or collapsed to facilitate a mass interaction.

Which kinda makes a photon anti-particle a graviton. Doesn’t it?

The content of this post was about as much information as I could keep in the back of my head to hold all the detail of that exercise together. Good to know I didn’t need much more cause it looks like much of the detail is addressed. Only thing that isn’t obvious so far is a description of the 2d plane that templates the two together. By the time I get through the material that might not be a requirement but it has tied detail together for me as a reference.

There’s a lady who’s sure, every moment glitters then folds, and she’s building an Einstein-Rosen bridge to nowhere…

Postpocelipse said:

There’s a lady who’s sure, every moment glitters then folds, and she’s building an Einstein-Rosen bridge to nowhere…

Does it make you wonder?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

There’s a lady who’s sure, every moment glitters then folds, and she’s building an Einstein-Rosen bridge to nowhere…

Does it make you wonder?

it makes Barry wonder…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

There’s a lady who’s sure, every moment glitters then folds, and she’s building an Einstein-Rosen bridge to nowhere…

Does it make you wonder?

It did. Now I’m trying to un-wonder it into various plans for galactic domination for my descendants. :P

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

There’s a lady who’s sure, every moment glitters then folds, and she’s building an Einstein-Rosen bridge to nowhere…

Does it make you wonder?

it makes Barry wonder…

That reminds me. I want to see Jimmy Fallon do Barry Gibbs doing Stairway To Heaven.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does it make you wonder?

it makes Barry wonder…

That reminds me. I want to see Jimmy Fallon do Barry Gibbs doing Stairway To Heaven.

the reference was from DAAS and Barry Crocker…

but whatever floats your goat…

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

it makes Barry wonder…

That reminds me. I want to see Jimmy Fallon do Barry Gibbs doing Stairway To Heaven.

the reference was from DAAS and Barry Crocker…

but whatever floats your goat…

I was trying to pick it but that was as far as I got.

I think the big triumph of Stairway was pulling off such a corny theme with such gusto.

If you have time moll, can you run through ‘kink/vortex/monopole/instanton’ as it pertains to heirarchy?

Postpocelipse said:

I think the big triumph of Stairway was pulling off such a corny theme with such gusto.

Could say the same about most everything Led Zep did :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I think the big triumph of Stairway was pulling off such a corny theme with such gusto.

Could say the same about most everything Led Zep did :)

Very true, yes.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

it makes Barry wonder…

That reminds me. I want to see Jimmy Fallon do Barry Gibbs doing Stairway To Heaven.

the reference was from DAAS and Barry Crocker…

but whatever floats your goat…

Had to look that up, but it was worth the effort.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

That reminds me. I want to see Jimmy Fallon do Barry Gibbs doing Stairway To Heaven.

the reference was from DAAS and Barry Crocker…

but whatever floats your goat…

Had to look that up, but it was worth the effort.

can’t beat the classics

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

stumpy_seahorse said:

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not matter what you say postie you ain’t talking physics. how long did you last on some real science forums talking to people who knew this stuff? 5 minutes before you were booted off for spouting crap. you’re still doing it.

Not only is what postpocalypse saying physics. It’s brilliant physics.
And I’ve never said that about any forum thread before.

the funny thing is, it’s neither