hoola

if the Everett idea of infinite universes does apply, would that not affect the issue?

If the particles are entangled in this universe, that seems to hold, but what if one particle is somehow sent to an Everettian style other universe? Would that not defeat any possibility of correlation?

I am proposing entangling the two balls in proximity, then moving ball 2 beyond ball one's light cone before measuring ball one.

with a clearly impossible thought experiment

oh yes, this is a thought experiment only, and realize a physical test is probably impossible...thanks. What about a light cone barrier. If one particle was carried out of the light cone from it's partner, would that theoretically disable entanglement?

yes, I am aware of that term being inaccurate technically, but I mean the out of phase parameter spin observations that occur in these experiments.

in any case? I am considering the traditional case of mere separation of partcles vs. separation by an event horizon.

as a thought experiment, what if one of an entangled pair of particles were to fall into a black hole and it's partner is in a remote lab and is measured. Would the black hole residing particle respond to it's partner as in the case of being separated by only distance, and not affect by the event horizon? IOW, is non locality blocked if one particle is behind the horizon, forming a sort of informational diode to even this quantum effect?

does a smaller kerr bh have a more extensive frame dragging radius due to a higher gravitational gradient than of a larger one?

so there would be some sympathetic rotation of the dm within a small finite range of the kerr bh event horizon, and would that range be larger with a smaller bh than of a bigger one?

Would a cavendish experiment in our galaxy's dm halo have a measure of G different from that measured on earth?

so....dm does rotate somewhat somewhere near the kerr hole, unless dm ignores space time, or is a minority variant species of space time itself.

if the proximate dm has rotation matching the kerr bh frame dragging and extends that effect out at the 1/r^2 distance, and gravity effects being of infinite range, doesn't that infer a declining dm rotation rate extending into the galactic visible mass?

about frame dragging...how extended from the event horizon is this effect predicted to occur?

near a rotating black hole and in the presence of DM, wouldn't a rotation of the proximate DM occur in the same direction of the bh due to frame dragging?

gas

frame dragging...could the collective mass of a galaxy exhibit a small potential for this, or at least at the vicinity of the central black hole? If DM particles have a non zero interaction, however small, wouldn't that offer a mechanism?

on my question of why the DM halo doesn't follow along with galactic matter......since there is a gravitational reaction between the two, why not? Shouldn't they eventually sync up in some form?

is the galactic DM halo proposed to orbit along with the same speed and direction of the visible matter in our galaxy?

thanks mordred, If the overrall density tends to a certain smoothness, and due to an inherent property of non clumpiness, cannot form "clouds" anywhere in the galaxy, I see that as correct. The question of why G is somewhat indeterminate was the source of the question. I had thought that low freq. gravity waves might be a factor sometime back, but was shown to be incorrect.

with these estimations, and if the distribution is inconsistent on small scales, does our particular vicinity within the galaxy allow the possibility of a "dark matter weather", in that within small regions, perhaps "clouds" of DM pass through the earth at various times, and contribute to the small variations in the value of G measurement?

does our galaxy have a dark matter component that has been estimated as to amount and distribution as of yet?

the original thread seems to indicate that the concepts of math divisions and time intervals are closely linked. Why can't math be "infinitely divided" and time composed of blocks of those infinite bits, therefore time being intuitionist and the bulk infinite? When I say the bulk is infinite, I mean it is heading to infinite, and will do so forever, perpetually subdividing down, so the bulk is at once intuitionist, but trending infinite and time is independent of those underlying actions, and functions in intuitionist status.

it seems as though the particles appearances are too brief to register in this domain of reality, so as to be said as not be not there, which they are shown to be by the casimir experiment. Nothing lasts forever, so why say things don't exist simply because they exist at the lower boundary of lifetime duration of a particular material property?