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.

Will reply when my brain is functioning.

mollwollfumble said:

Will reply when my brain is functioning.

I understand.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Will reply when my brain is functioning.

I understand.

thistlesight@gmail.com if you prefer. Not sure I know what else to say on the subject here.

> Moll I think the space occupied by an event horizon is the only 2 dimensional space we can ‘observe’ from within the universe.

I agree with that.

> From my current perspective it is the important part of a BH in most manners.

I tend to disagree. There are hypothetical objects called “naked singularities” that are almost identical to black holes but have no event horizon. Imagine a star that is longer along its axis than perpendicular to its axis, ie. is prolate (football shaped) rather than oblate (discus-shaped). This would be very rare, but not impossible. When a prolate spinning star collapses then you get a naked singularity rather than a black hole. No event horizon.

The key thing for me here, that is relevant to Malcedina and Susskind’s ER=EPR, is that an electron can be considered to be an example of a naked singularity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

This gives us possible method for understanding entanglement of electron spins. If black holes can be entangled and electrons are form of black hole with no event horizon, then the entanglement of electron spins becomes equivalent to a generalization of the wormhole that links two naked singularities.

I mention this because the two most common instances of entanglement seen in QM are the entanglement of photon polarisations (which I don’t understand yet) and the entanglement of electron spins.

An instanton linking naked singularities (ie. electron spins) could also be visualised as a doublet in 2-D. But, like two vortices/spins together and unlike two sinks/black_holes together, it could not be visualised in 3-D as a quantum mechanics P orbital.

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

As Susskind’s solution of the information paradox, possibly. As Susskind’s ER=EPR, no.

> Have you ever considered whether it is genuinely one of an atom’s electrons that jumps energy shells as the photon is reflected (ie. absorbed or emitted)

Yes.

> or whether the photon reaches a boundary around the atom that turns it momentarily into an electron as it transfers information and is redirected?

No. A photon can only transform momentarily into an electron-positron pair of matter and antimatter. It cannot transform into an electron.

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

There still seems to me to be a huge gap between this and a consistent gravity theory. Hence my question about whether ER=EPR can be considered to be an attempt at a TOE or not.

mollwollfumble said:

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

As Susskind’s solution of the information paradox, possibly. As Susskind’s ER=EPR, no.

The information paradox is ER=EPR.

>
>
>
>
>
No. A photon can only transform momentarily into an electron-positron pair of matter and antimatter. It cannot transform into an electron.>
>
>
>
>
Did I say it isn’t doing that? Voila entanglement………..

Postpocelipse said:

No. A photon can only transform momentarily into an electron-positron pair of matter and antimatter. It cannot transform into an electron.>
>
>
>
>
Did I say it isn’t doing that? Voila entanglement………..

You have to guess where the positron goes. And then keep it to yourself.

When I say A Hawking radiation EH is the important part I mean that in reference to Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton and uniting quantum and GR. The golden knot as you referred to it. Put that much together with “where does the positron go in a reflecting photon” and I’m fairly certain the whole question is answered in the detail.

Postpocelipse said:

When I say A Hawking radiation EH is the important part I mean that in reference to Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton and uniting quantum and GR. The golden knot as you referred to it. Put that much together with “where does the positron go in a reflecting photon” and I’m fairly certain the whole question is answered in the detail.

Just remember there is an instanton in action when a particle connects with another.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

When I say A Hawking radiation EH is the important part I mean that in reference to Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton and uniting quantum and GR. The golden knot as you referred to it. Put that much together with “where does the positron go in a reflecting photon” and I’m fairly certain the whole question is answered in the detail.

Just remember there is an instanton in action when a particle connects with another.

Another way I can put it is “where does an electron’s strong interaction reside to allow electrons to occupy the same space under the Pauli Principal?”

Postpocelipse said:

Another way I can put it is “where does an electron’s strong interaction reside to allow electrons to occupy the same space under the Pauli Principal?”

I don’t have the faintest idea.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Another way I can put it is “where does an electron’s strong interaction reside to allow electrons to occupy the same space under the Pauli Principal?”

I don’t have the faintest idea.

For our purpose here I will just leave the answer to that as 2d space, for now. The best I can give to clarify that is “what information is being transferred when a photon reflects off an atom?”

What are other natural information paradoxes moll? Each one can only be resolved through the same system so exploring them is well worth it on this subject.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Another way I can put it is “where does an electron’s strong interaction reside to allow electrons to occupy the same space under the Pauli Principal?”

I don’t have the faintest idea.

For our purpose here I will just leave the answer to that as 2d space, for now. The best I can give to clarify that is “what information is being transferred when a photon reflects off an atom?”

Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton defines separation of entangled spaces. For the purpose of the exercise one can assume that while a photon exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s positron exists in superposition within the atom’s fundamental entanglement space.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t have the faintest idea.

For our purpose here I will just leave the answer to that as 2d space, for now. The best I can give to clarify that is “what information is being transferred when a photon reflects off an atom?”

Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton defines separation of entangled spaces. For the purpose of the exercise one can assume that while a photon exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s positron exists in superposition within the atom’s fundamental entanglement space.

Momentum is conserved through super-positioned virtual positrons.

Postpocelipse said:

What are other natural information paradoxes moll? Each one can only be resolved through the same system so exploring them is well worth it on this subject.

“information paradox” normally means “black hole information paradox”.

The only other things that come to mind when talking about “information” and “paradox” together are:
Shannon Entropy, which unifies information theory and thermodynamics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_information_theory
and Bell’s inequality, which separates quantum mechanics from classical mechanics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

What are other natural information paradoxes moll? Each one can only be resolved through the same system so exploring them is well worth it on this subject.

“information paradox” normally means “black hole information paradox”.

The only other things that come to mind when talking about “information” and “paradox” together are:
Shannon Entropy, which unifies information theory and thermodynamics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_information_theory
and Bell’s inequality, which separates quantum mechanics from classical mechanics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem

Nice. This should give me a little more descriptive elbow room once absorbed. Cheers bloke. :)

This is the first time I’ve enjoyed discussing this topic. Up till now it has mostly been a distressing exercise. Thanks again moll.. :)

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

For our purpose here I will just leave the answer to that as 2d space, for now. The best I can give to clarify that is “what information is being transferred when a photon reflects off an atom?”

Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton defines separation of entangled spaces. For the purpose of the exercise one can assume that while a photon exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s positron exists in superposition within the atom’s fundamental entanglement space.

Momentum is conserved through super-positioned virtual positrons.

This description makes photon’s a monopole particle………….

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Kink/Vortex/Monopole/Instanton defines separation of entangled spaces. For the purpose of the exercise one can assume that while a photon exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s positron exists in superposition within the atom’s fundamental entanglement space.

Momentum is conserved through super-positioned virtual positrons.

This description makes photon’s a monopole particle………….

Consider a free neutrino travelling through space. If the neutrino began as an electron neutrino an it hit’s a patch of UEM field that allows it to express it’s entanglement it will oscillate from electron through muon and tau before continuing as an electron neutrino. This oscillation space is a super-positioned positron, for all intents and purposes.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Momentum is conserved through super-positioned virtual positrons.

This description makes photon’s a monopole particle………….

Consider a free neutrino travelling through space. If the neutrino began as an electron neutrino an it hit’s a patch of UEM field that allows it to express it’s entanglement it will oscillate from electron through muon and tau before continuing as an electron neutrino. This oscillation space is a super-positioned positron, for all intents and purposes.

The length of the oscillation expresses the position of the particle the neutrino is fundamentally entangled with.

Can’t tie it together with less fuss than that moll.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

This description makes photon’s a monopole particle………….

Consider a free neutrino travelling through space. If the neutrino began as an electron neutrino an it hit’s a patch of UEM field that allows it to express it’s entanglement it will oscillate from electron through muon and tau before continuing as an electron neutrino. This oscillation space is a super-positioned positron, for all intents and purposes.

The length of the oscillation expresses the position of the particle the neutrino is fundamentally entangled with.

I believe an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the expression of a gravitational instanton, moll.

So you were absolutely correct moll. ER=EPR can unite quantum and GR without introducing a single ‘real’ particle and with only the mildest trepidation I would consider it as TOE resembling as it gets.

Postpocelipse said:

Weird map from 3d Euclidean space to 3d Euclidean space much?

I believe an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the expression of a gravitational instanton, moll.

Weird map from 3d Euclidean space to 3d Euclidean space much?

You can calculate both a particle’s position and velocity provided you know the position of it’s fundamental entanglement.

Postpocelipse said:

You can calculate both a particle’s position and velocity provided you know the position of it’s fundamental entanglement.

Another paradox bites the dust……….

I guess the Pauli exclusion principal will require greater clarification to unite GR and quantum through ER=EPR.

Postpocelipse said:

I guess the Pauli exclusion principal will require greater clarification to unite GR and quantum through ER=EPR.

Which is cool cause I always liked that one kinda exclusively. :)

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I guess the Pauli exclusion principal will require greater clarification to unite GR and quantum through ER=EPR.

Which is cool cause I always liked that one kinda exclusively. :)

The principals of exclusion provide any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the photon the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I guess the Pauli exclusion principal will require greater clarification to unite GR and quantum through ER=EPR.

Which is cool cause I always liked that one kinda exclusively. :)

The principals of exclusion provide any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the photon the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

An electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the counterpart to a quark-set as cross section of an entanglement.

A photon is a monopole particle in transitional state. While it exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s anti-particle embedded in the entanglement that emitted it is being transmitted information regarding the photon’s current refraction and subsequent resolution.

Hawking radiation provides the maintenance of a non-naked singularity making the EH the ‘black hole’ constituent. The singularity is being maintained in the collapsed instanton(gravitation instanton) state by both the in-falling Hawking radiation and the out-falling polarisation those photon’s are entangled with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can you do something with that moll?

:P

Maybe you can give me some idea how far this thread would get were it submitted as a philosophy thesis moll?

Postpocelipse said:

:P

Maybe you can give me some idea how far this thread would get were it submitted as a philosophy thesis moll?

or job application……

:P :P

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Which is cool cause I always liked that one kinda exclusively. :)

The principals of exclusion provide any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the photon the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

The Pauli Exclusion Principal defines entanglement and removes the Uncertainty Principal once inflated(non-gravitational) and collapsed(gravitational) instantons are defined.

An electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the counterpart to a quark-set as cross section of an entanglement.

A photon is a monopole particle in transitional state. While it exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s anti-particle embedded in the entanglement that emitted it is being transmitted information regarding the photon’s current refraction and subsequent resolution.

Hawking radiation provides the maintenance of a non-naked singularity making the EH the ‘black hole’ constituent. The singularity is being maintained in the collapsed instanton(gravitation instanton) state by both the in-falling Hawking radiation and the out-falling polarisation those photon’s are entangled with.

Protons and neutrons are inflated(non-gravitational) instantons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can you do something with that moll?

For values of TOE, ER=EPR=100% calculable unification of GR and Quantum.

For values of TOE, see any know it all on the street…………

Postpocelipse said:

For values of TOE-Theory of Entanglement, ER=EPR=100% calculable unification of GR and Quantum.

For values of TOE-Theory of Everything, see any know it all on the street…………

For some reason putting round those TOE definitions made them disappear. Spooky………..

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

For values of TOE-Theory of Entanglement, ER=EPR=100% calculable unification of GR and Quantum.

For values of TOE-Theory of Everything, see any know it all on the street…………

For some reason putting () round those TOE definitions made them disappear. Spooky………..

Uh-oh! I haven’t got a small elusive problem to worry about when I can’t worry about something I can fix. uummmm……….

Postpocelipse said:

Uh-oh! I haven’t got a small elusive problem to worry about when I can’t worry about something I can fix. uummmm……….

Meh…… I’ll just imagine Mr’s fumble making a racket at church that moll has to sit through studiously. That should keep me chuckling till he gives me something else to think about………

The Gold Knot Katana:

Spine=Twist forged meteorite iron

Skin=Fold forged gold/titanium alloy

Edge=Occam’s Razor

Enemies=Totally eviscerated

By The Sword-Slash featuring Andrew Stockdale

Postpocelipse said:

The principals of exclusion provide any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the photon the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

The Pauli Exclusion Principal defines entanglement and removes the Uncertainty Principal once inflated(non-gravitational) and collapsed(gravitational) instantons are defined.

An electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the counterpart to a quark-set as cross section of an entanglement.

A photon is a monopole particle in transitional state. While it exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s anti-particle embedded in the entanglement that emitted it is being transmitted information regarding the photon’s current refraction and subsequent resolution.

Hawking radiation provides the maintenance of a non-naked singularity making the EH the ‘black hole’ constituent. The singularity is being maintained in the collapsed instanton(gravitation instanton) state by both the in-falling Hawking radiation and the out-falling polarisation those photon’s are entangled with.

Protons and neutrons are inflated(non-gravitational) instantons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can you do something with that moll?