Thought the ER=EPR thread is getting a bit all over the joint so I’ll start the subject again from just the good bits.

Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton

This process is what I pictured going on behind the scenes during inflation and pair production cascade. If you could begin again here, moll, explaining the hierarchy this comes under I would very much appreciate it.

:)

Postpocelipse said:

Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton

This process is what I pictured going on behind the scenes during inflation and pair production cascade.

I’ll go out on a limb and illustrate this briefly. It is interesting they have named these phases as they have.

Kink

During inflation the moment that electron’s are produced represents the moment AM(angular momentum) is defined within the inflation soup. Electron pairing increases inflation pressure to the point that electron’s begin to fuse as photon transitons provide them a common space to occupy.

Vortex

Hydrogen production further describes the semi-developed plane of AM and seemingly puts each inflating lobe on an annihilation course back toward each other. The photon mass of the fused electrons acts as momentum against this diversion and once again increases the internal pressure of each lobe so that the fusion that drops back to helium occurs, the process of which describes the limits of AM available to each lobe.

Monopole

The moment that helium production occurs represents the momentum of each lobe finding a CM which is capable of absorbing photon production with stability and allowing a path to a slower expansion.

Instanton

I guess this is the epoch is where helium cooling switches the lights off until re-ionization.

<
<
<
<
<

This much has provided me a sense of what to look for in other people’s data, more or less. I can draw various inferences from the reasoning behind what put that much together but to a fairly limited degree. I’ll be looking up this hierarchy and absorbing what I can but a guide to where to begin would help there. Vortex/Monopole and now Instanton I can come at to some degree already but “kink” is new to me in this context.

The only other related question I can think of ATM is how to gauge the phasing of Hawking radiation/gravitational instantons. Am wondering how neutrinos will fit in to the picture. Never worked out where exactly neutrinos fit into the inflation sequence either. Maybe they are part of what maintains annihilation separation until helium floats the boat?

All we need is He-escape velocity and an instanton view…… na nana na…

I tried to develop that little inflation map through quark reference but I think that would be easier to work back from this stuff to understand.

Postpocelipse said:

Thought the ER=EPR thread is getting a bit all over the joint so I’ll start the subject again from just the good bits.

Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton

This process is what I pictured going on behind the scenes during inflation and pair production cascade. If you could begin again here, moll, explaining the hierarchy this comes under I would very much appreciate it.

:)

It’s not a variation in time, it’s a change of topology, similar to the familiar Genus of topological surfaces. Except that here it’s not a surface, it’s more complicated than that.

On the other hand, as a topological variation it’s less complicated than the Yau-Calabi manifold beloved of string theory.

A quotation that immediately comes to mind in connection to topological variations in space-time is from Douglas Adams.

The phrase “In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move. The Heart Of Gold told space to get knotted.” Immediately comes to mind. A topological variation is like a knot in space-time.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Thought the ER=EPR thread is getting a bit all over the joint so I’ll start the subject again from just the good bits.

Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton

This process is what I pictured going on behind the scenes during inflation and pair production cascade. If you could begin again here, moll, explaining the hierarchy this comes under I would very much appreciate it.

:)

It’s not a variation in time, it’s a change of topology, similar to the familiar Genus of topological surfaces. Except that here it’s not a surface, it’s more complicated than that.

On the other hand, as a topological variation it’s less complicated than the Yau-Calabi manifold beloved of string theory.

A quotation that immediately comes to mind in connection to topological variations in space-time is from Douglas Adams.

The phrase “In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move. The Heart Of Gold told space to get knotted.” Immediately comes to mind. A topological variation is like a knot in space-time.

Ok. Following. As about as far as I got with the quark map of that inflation phase is that the quarks of a proton or neutron are the cross section of the electron that is either entangled or fused with it. Free protons in our space I’ve had to assume are low enough in energy to become entangled with an anti-electron in the counter-lobe’s space.

The stability of an isotopic element is related to it’s energy balance putting it out of reach of any of it’s proton’s/neutron’s becoming low enough in energy to become entangled with anti-electrons within the counter-lobe.

There’s something kinda suss about all of this………

Much as I’d want to pass on about gravity theory is that Hawking radiation should be the local gravitational constant. Not long after I read Brief History Of Time I began sketching that map out on paper. Got to a point where I was telling myself potentially dangerous information without understanding how exactly it got there so I realised that I was doing most of it in my head anyway and stopped writing notes.
<
<
<
<
<
<
……… hehehe…. “Help me Moll-Woll-Fumble-Nobi! Before my brain explodes!”

Posty, I think the best outcome is for you and moll to exchange email addresses and talk about your propositions between each other. The forum is for public discussion, not for a two on one.

tauto said:

Posty, I think the best outcome is for you and moll to exchange email addresses and talk about your propositions between each other. The forum is for public discussion, not for a two on one.

2 on one? Moll said he is new to instantons so I“ve given him what works for me. If he wants to make the discussion private I don’t have an issue. Moll?

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

I think it would be a great shame if mollwoll and postpoc are forced to conduct their discussions in private.

Postpocelipse said:

Much as I’d want to pass on about gravity theory is that Hawking radiation should be the local gravitational constant. Not long after I read Brief History Of Time I began sketching that map out on paper. Got to a point where I was telling myself potentially dangerous information without understanding how exactly it got there so I realised that I was doing most of it in my head anyway and stopped writing notes.
<
<
<
<
<
<
……… hehehe…. “Help me Moll-Woll-Fumble-Nobi! Before my brain explodes!”

Can’t help. My brain has died.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

But he hasn’t done that here, and no-one makes you read it anyway.

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

Not at all. I become upset when people trash these threads with profound personal remarks and insults. Anyone is welcome to comment on the subject I simply haven’t found anyone capable of comprehending this material in a manner that allows discussion aside from moll, as yet. Postal? I’ve had a vent once or twice after people continue to inundate these threads with asininity. You want a demonstration of postal knock on my door and threaten my kid……….

The Rev Dodgson said:

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

But he hasn’t done that here, and no-one makes you read it anyway.

Expletives he reckons Rev. I think my satire threads enhance the place!

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Much as I’d want to pass on about gravity theory is that Hawking radiation should be the local gravitational constant. Not long after I read Brief History Of Time I began sketching that map out on paper. Got to a point where I was telling myself potentially dangerous information without understanding how exactly it got there so I realised that I was doing most of it in my head anyway and stopped writing notes.
<
<
<
<
<
<
……… hehehe…. “Help me Moll-Woll-Fumble-Nobi! Before my brain explodes!”

Can’t help. My brain has died.

That is ok really. Kinda just describing the state of mind this had me in when I first got here. You helped putting me onto instantons. That has allowed me to summarise and clarify where I’ve got to and once I sit through the instanton material I think I can apply myself at least to the gravity theory part. Just a note for my notes, when I say a quark triplet within a proton is the cross section of the electron it is entangled with it’s probably more useful in most areas to describe it as a cross section of the entanglement itself.

If it is genuinely breaking your head I can only say you just have to get used to it cause I think it will keep doing that until the instanton mechanism is wholly described.

Where to begin gauging the energy/polarisation of Hawking radiation might be an easier subject to address in the meantime.

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Postpocelipse said:

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

Not at all. I become upset when people trash these threads with profound personal remarks and insults. Anyone is welcome to comment on the subject I simply haven’t found anyone capable of comprehending this material in a manner that allows discussion aside from moll, as yet. Postal? I’ve had a vent once or twice after people continue to inundate these threads with asininity. You want a demonstration of postal knock on my door and threaten my kid……….

Yet you have threatened at least one person here.

kii said:

Postpocelipse said:

tauto said:

—-

Because posty goes postal and trashes the forum with expletives every time someone is critical of his ideas, understanding or wording.

Not at all. I become upset when people trash these threads with profound personal remarks and insults. Anyone is welcome to comment on the subject I simply haven’t found anyone capable of comprehending this material in a manner that allows discussion aside from moll, as yet. Postal? I’ve had a vent once or twice after people continue to inundate these threads with asininity. You want a demonstration of postal knock on my door and threaten my kid……….

Yet you have threatened at least one person here.

Name one incident? I’ve offered Boris the opportunity to deal with his issue. He turns up at my door we’ll talk about that compulsion I guess. I choose my words carefully most of the time.

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Do you see how that is basically the same thing Susskind is saying?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Do you see how that is basically the same thing Susskind is saying?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Do you see how that is basically the same thing Susskind is saying?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

I know you like Occam’s razor questions….. :)

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Do you see how that is basically the same thing Susskind is saying?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

I know you like Occam’s razor questions….. :)

If you put those together with Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton, it pretty well sums the whole question up.

Postpocelipse said:

Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe. From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners. The singularity’s state is maintained by in-falling hawking radiation AFAICT.

Do you see how that is basically the same thing Susskind is saying?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

I know you like Occam’s razor questions….. :)

If you put those together with Kink-Vortex-Monopole-Instanton, it pretty well sums the whole question up.

Gravity theory that is………..

Please thank mollwollfumble’s patience, my questions on this subject have been resolved. I will not answer questions on the subject either. If you understand the last post you wouldn’t have any questions anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

I think it would be a great shame if mollwoll and postpoc are forced to conduct their discussions in private.

I agree. If nothing else, it may provide us with a good chuckle.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

I think it would be a great shame if mollwoll and postpoc are forced to conduct their discussions in private.

I agree. If nothing else, it may provide us with a good chuckle.

You don’t comprehend this detail that was missed?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

Ok. You might want to think about it……..

Postpocelipse said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would object to this thread.

I think it would be a great shame if mollwoll and postpoc are forced to conduct their discussions in private.

I agree. If nothing else, it may provide us with a good chuckle.

You don’t comprehend this detail that was missed?

Got an auxiliary question for you. Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

Ok. You might want to think about it……..

The answer makes just a smidge of difference to the equations but just enough to give what they are showing, from my basic maths.

Postpocelipse said:

Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

It is generally accepted that when particles are created, they come from the vacuum, and go back into the vacuum when they are annihilated.

Are you familiar with the Huygens–Fresnel principle?

KJW said:

Postpocelipse said:

Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

It is generally accepted that when particles are created, they come from the vacuum, and go back into the vacuum when they are annihilated.

Are you familiar with the Huygens–Fresnel principle?

Okey doke. Cool. Huge Freezed Bit. Got it.

KJW said:

Are you familiar with the Huygens–Fresnel principle?

Yes. I hadn’t thought of this in that light (pun intended).

Do you know how the “Huygens–Fresnel principle” ties in with the polarisation of light?

mollwollfumble said:

KJW said:

Are you familiar with the Huygens–Fresnel principle?

Yes. I hadn’t thought of this in that light (pun intended).

Do you know how the “Huygens–Fresnel principle” ties in with the polarisation of light?

Not in an academically sound sentence.

mollwollfumble said:

KJW said:

Are you familiar with the Huygens–Fresnel principle?

Yes. I hadn’t thought of this in that light (pun intended).

Do you know how the “Huygens–Fresnel principle” ties in with the polarisation of light?

I didn’t intend any insolence with my reply to KJW’s reference. It has simply taken me a night to begin to absorb the implications of the material on the Occam’s Razor thread. I’ll go over the principal but a short explanation of your question would be appreciated moll.