Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The following link might also be of interest to you, it is a bit more general than itoeros but points to the fact that all things could be entangled to a certain extent. It still does not answer your question ref range of seperation things can be entangled at.

http://discovermagazine.com/2016/jul-aug/entanglement

Itoero that link is incredibly interesting, the same arguments must exist in space also. 

Can matter form by the process of many body entanglement in space. Question mark

-Particles are entangled because a quantum state is entangled (like the spin of an electron). This can only happen because of some form of interaction. They will probably find several new ways of how particles or objects can interact to form entanglement...this will give more info concerning the range of separation in which particles or objects can get entangled at.

-This concerns a model called Holographic Entangled Space time. According to this model...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) If this model is correct then there is a possibility that mass or energy can form because of the breaking of many body entanglement.

 

[Handy andy]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

-Particles are entangled because a quantum state is entangled (like the spin of an electron). This can only happen because of some form of interaction. They will probably find several new ways of how particles or objects can interact to form entanglement...this will give more info concerning the range of separation in which particles or objects can get entangled at.

-This concerns a model called Holographic Entangled Space time. According to this model...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) If this model is correct then there is a possibility that mass or energy can form because of the breaking of many body entanglement.

 

Thank you for that answer, I was thinking along the lines of Feynman diagrams, but your answer is better, do you have any links better than Wikipedia?

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Handy andy

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Thank you for that answer, I was thinking along the lines of Feynman diagrams, but your answer is better, do you have any links better than Wikipedia?

 

There is something interesting that points to a causal relationship between energy (mass) and entanglement.

" In stark contrast to transport experiments, absorption of a single photon leads to an abrupt change in the system Hamiltonian and a quantum quench of Kondo correlations. By inferring the characteristic power law exponents from the experimental absorption line-shapes, we find a unique signature of the quench in the form of an Anderson orthogonality catastrophe, originating from a vanishing overlap between the initial and final many-body wave-functions. We also show that the power-law exponents that determine the degree of orthogonality can be tuned by applying an external magnetic field which gradually turns the Kondo correlations off."https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3982.pdf

This wiki concerns Electronic correlation, interesting stuff.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_correlation#Mathematical_viewpoint

15 minutes ago, interested said:

Does this effect how matter is created in the early universe, or the Big bang theory?

Maybe, If it's true that the breaking of entanglement creates energy or mass then that might be related to the way the observable universe is created...but it's a very big 'IF'. According to big bang cosmology there was a thermal equilibrium. Regions which today are out of causal contact were once in equilibrium with each other...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1584.pdf

Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space. Mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

[interested]

On ‎18‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 7:52 PM, Itoero said:

 

Maybe, If it's true that the breaking of entanglement creates energy or mass then that might be related to the way the observable universe is created...but it's a very big 'IF'. According to big bang cosmology there was a thermal equilibrium. Regions which today are out of causal contact were once in equilibrium with each other...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1584.pdf

 

I understand according to some the Big Bang is possibly as a result of a Black hole exploding at some critical mass level rather than from a singularity. https://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 this is just one of many links I found, it kind of explains why black holes are thought to exist at the centre of galaxies. But it still leaves the question where did the original mass in the Black hole come from. Mass has been observed being ejected from black holes at almost light speed, along with gamma rays.

Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, interested said:

I understand according to some the Big Bang is possibly as a result of a Black hole exploding at some critical mass level rather than from a singularity.

I don't think there are any theories based on black holes exploding.

2 minutes ago, interested said:

this is just one of many links I found, it kind of explains why black holes are thought to exist at the centre of galaxies.

That doesn't say anything about black holes exploding nor, as far as I can see about black holes at the centre of galaxies.

Quote

But it still leaves the question where did the original mass in the Black hole come from.

From the mass of the star that collapsed to form the black hole. (And, in that highly speculative, purely theoretical paper, they would be 4D stars.)

Quote

Mass has been observed being ejected from black holes at almost light speed, along with gamma rays.

Mass is ejected from the accretion disk around black holes, not from the black hole itself.

None of this seems to have any connection with the topic of the thread.

5 minutes ago, interested said:

Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?

It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, interested said:

https://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 this is just one of many links I found

I just read through to the end of this. "Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model." Yeuch. They haven't thrown out the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model describes how the universe evolves from an early hot dense state. They haven't challenged that at all.

7 minutes ago, interested said:

Now I don't know what to think.

I would take everything Itoero posts with a large pinch of salt.... (And I wouldn't trust everything I say, either. I am often wrong!)

[interested]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

I just read through to the end of this. "Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model." Yeuch. They haven't thrown out the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model describes how the universe evolves from an early hot dense state. They haven't challenged that at all.

I would take everything Itoero posts with a large pinch of salt.... (And I wouldn't trust everything I say, either. I am often wrong!)

I think that the sudden realization that singularities from big bangs and monster black holes seem to contradict each other are not exactly related to this thread

http://www.indiana.edu/~fluid/contradictions-between-the-black-hole-and-the-big-bang-theories-and-the-structure-of-the-universe/

There are lots of links when you start digging. I think I will stick with the basics and let someone else worry about possible contradictions in theories.

 

 

[Itoero]

On ‎20‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 4:09 PM, Strange said:

It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero.

You are wrong. I never said "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles".  I said this: "According to Holographic entangled space time...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) " I backed up everything I said......no speculation.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You are wrong. I never said "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles".  I said this: "According to Holographic entangled space time...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) " I backed up everything I said......no speculation.

Perhaps you could back that up with a reference then. (The link in the post where you said that doesn't say anything like that.)

And energy is not mass.

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you could back that up with a reference then. (The link in the post where you said that doesn't say anything like that.)

And energy is not mass.

How do i give a reference for something I didn't say?  In these posts I talked about it:

True, but if  there is mass, there is energy, this s the mass-energy equivalence.(with many thanks to Albert Einstein)

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

How do i give a reference for something I didn't say?  In these posts I talked about it:

What!? Why would I ask you to give a reference for something you didn't say? 

I asked you to give a reference for what you DID say. Obviously.

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

I said this: "According to Holographic entangled space time...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) "

Where did this come from? I am curious because I haven't heard anything like it before.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The speculative parts of this hijack can't be any part of a mainstream thread. Please think about students who trust mainstream to mean just that. 

Please defend the speculative parts, per the rules of the Speculations section.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

You are wrong. I never said "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles".  

Did anyone say that you did?

[Itoero]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

Did anyone say that you did?

Yes, you did. Check your last reply.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Where did this come from? I am curious because I haven't heard anything like it before.

It's explained in this video by my good friend Leonard Susskind.

 

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes, you did. Check your last reply.

Where in that post does it say anything about "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles" ?

It is purely about black holes.

27 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It's explained in this video by my good friend Leonard Susskind.

I'll have to take your word for it then. (I will have to assume you are better at understanding the spoken word than written.)

 

Ah, here is a website with a transcript of the video. 

http://www.cornell.edu/video/leonard-susskind-3-entanglement

I haven't read it all yet. It is not very clear (because it is an informal talk) but I get the impression that energy is not created, just moved from one place to another.

[Itoero]

This is what Interested said: "Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical? "

This was your reply: "It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero"

=>It's not speculation of me since I did not say it. I'm very careful to talk about possibilities because the model is not sufficiently proven to be 'science'.  Interested just misinterpreted me.

It seems that entanglement transforms a form of energy in correlation energy(or the breaking of entanglement creates a form of energy)...this correlation energy holds space together ( if the model is correct). This behavior of entanglement is visible in the Kondo effect and experiments done to understand the Kondo effect. There is also the hypothesis that entanglement in electron clouds holds DNA from falling apart, which also points to the model that entanglement holds space together.https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

Thanks for the transcript. I like Leonard Susskind, he has a good voice, knows how to talk to people and grab their attention.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Itoero

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 It seems that entanglement transforms a form of energy in correlation energy(or the breaking of entanglement creates a form of energy)...this correlation energy holds space together ( if the model is correct).  

What model?

"entanglement holds DNA together" is a very crude description of what is actually suspected of going on. Probably best not to rely on the pop-sci description. Not a whole lot of detail, or reliable information, in that.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This is what Interested said: "Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical? "

This was your reply: "It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero"

Sorry. I wasn't taking it that literally. I just meant the whole thing of entanglement creating mass. Not particles, specifically. From that transcript, it sounds like you are extrapolating well beyond what was said. As you did with the black hole article too linked to.

[Itoero]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

What model?

"entanglement holds DNA together" is a very crude description of what is actually suspected of going on

This is the model: Holographic entangled spacetimes via the holographic principle using ADS/CFT theory. (thanks to Mordred for explaining)

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry. I wasn't taking it that literally. I just meant the whole thing of entanglement creating mass. Not particles, specifically. From that transcript, it sounds like you are extrapolating well beyond what was said. As you did with the black hole article too linked to.

Sorry, I take everything literally.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Sorry, I take everything literally.

Except when you are extrapolating wildly and adding all sorts of details that weren't present in the original. 

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This is the model: Holographic entangled spacetimes via the holographic principle using ADS/CFT theory.

For the interested reader, here is a bit of background for this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/

(That is the sort of thing I was asking for, Itoero.)

[Mordred]

6 hours ago, Itoero said:

This is what Interested said: "Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical? "

This was your reply: "It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero"

=>It's not speculation of me since I did not say it. I'm very careful to talk about possibilities because the model is not sufficiently proven to be 'science'.  Interested just misinterpreted me.

It seems that entanglement transforms a form of energy in correlation energy(or the breaking of entanglement creates a form of energy)...this correlation energy holds space together ( if the model is correct). This behavior of entanglement is visible in the Kondo effect and experiments done to understand the Kondo effect. There is also the hypothesis that entanglement in electron clouds holds DNA from falling apart, which also points to the model that entanglement holds space together.https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

Thanks for the transcript. I like Leonard Susskind, he has a good voice, knows how to talk to people and grab their attention.

I believe you may be referring to Hartree-Fock energy or often termed correlation energy and its applications in the Kondo effect as well as the corresponding Kondo temperatures

Its also applied with DNA

Edited August 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Handy andy]

On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:04 PM, interested said:

I understand according to some the Big Bang is possibly as a result of a Black hole exploding at some critical mass level rather than from a singularity. https://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 this is just one of many links I found, it kind of explains why black holes are thought to exist at the centre of galaxies. But it still leaves the question where did the original mass in the Black hole come from. Mass has been observed being ejected from black holes at almost light speed, along with gamma rays.

Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?

On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, Strange said:

I don't think there are any theories based on black holes exploding.

That doesn't say anything about black holes exploding nor, as far as I can see about black holes at the centre of galaxies.

From the mass of the star that collapsed to form the black hole. (And, in that highly speculative, purely theoretical paper, they would be 4D stars.)

Mass is ejected from the accretion disk around black holes, not from the black hole itself.

None of this seems to have any connection with the topic of the thread.

It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero.

Since interested doesn't appear to be interested anymore, I googled this for you ref black holes as a source of a big bang.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=big+bang+blackhole+exploding&view=detail&mid=832DFAAE9B7299C6BF38832DFAAE9B7299C6BF38&FORM=VIRE

The black hole concept of a big bang does not explain where the original matter in the black hole or multiple black holes and big bangs came from.

Interested asked "Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?"

I think it has been answered in that it is purely theoretical, but the question still stands, could mass be created in space independent of a big bang. 

Multiple single particles appearing in space over an eternity could be the source of the material that accumulated in black holes and exploded in a big bang.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

I think it has been answered in that it is purely theoretical, but the question still stands, could mass be created in space independent of a big bang. 

There is no known mechanism for this.

Quote

Multiple single particles appearing in space over an eternity could be the source of the material that accumulated in black holes and exploded in a big bang.

There is no evidence for this. And no known mechanism for a black hole to explode. (As your reference appears to be a video, I have no idea what it is about.)

And a black hole exploding, even if possible, has nothing in common with the Big Bang model.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Strange

[Handy andy]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no known mechanism for this.

There is no evidence for this. And no known mechanism for a black hole to explode. (As your reference appears to be a video, I have no idea what it is about.)

There is no "detectable" mechanism for this. But if quantum material or virtual particles exists in the lab at absolute zero, they exist in space also, and could be a mechanism.

Perhaps Vibrating strings in space, or quantum foam filling all of space, etc . No need to answer, I know you think space is empty nothingness  All things could be Entangled to a certain extent, and space is a thing.  unless its empty nothingness.

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

There is no "detectable" mechanism for this. But if quantum material or virtual particles exists in the lab at absolute zero, they exist in space also, and could be a mechanism.

This is vague beyond belief (and off topic). "Maybe this thing I don't understand could be the mechanism". Well no. If so, the people who do understand quantum field theory would have noticed. You are suggesting a violation of energy conservation, something which has never been observed.