Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)

[interested]

Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, may have appeared out of the vacuum, then coalesced into a big black hole before exploding in a big bang.?

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 Qoute -Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled. Close Qoute.

The electric field would do two things: it separates the particles, since they have opposite charge, and it also does work (adds energy to the particles), so that the particles can exist and energy be conserved.

They would be spin entangled, since the total spin must be zero. One would be spin up and one spin down. But entangled quarks is a special case of this, since quarks can't appear on their own. You'd be creating a meson, such as a π⁰  which is a superposition of the two quark states.

We haven't even been able to see this with e^-e⁺ pairs, though, and mesons have (at a minimum) more than 100x the mass

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Would a particle created in space at 0k be more likely to survive and form the original matter that came out of a big bang. question mark

The big bang wasn't at 0 K, or anywhere near it. Nothing is at 0 K.

[interested]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

The big bang wasn't at 0 K, or anywhere near it. Nothing is at 0 K.

I have been googling all sorts of stuff to try and clarify for myself what the answer to my original questions were.

I know the big bang was not at 0 K, I was referring to the original matter of the universe, before a big bang.

Handy andy posted a video link on page 2 ref a pair of black holes that are exploding and suggested that black holes could be the source of the Big Bang, Strange suggested no such theories existed. Theories suggesting black holes explode do exist and avoid the concept of singularities.

The following links are interesting ref Holographic origins of the big bang

https://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487.pdf

There are dozens of other links along these lines, one could spend a life time reading them all.

Edited August 29, 2017 by interested

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Would a particle created in space at 0k be more likely to survive and form the original matter that came out of a big bang. question mark

There is nowhere in space at 0K. And the early universe was much, much hotter. 

[swansont]

Just now, interested said:

 I know the big bang was not at 0 K, I was referring to the original matter of the universe, before a big bang.

What original matter? There's no evidence that there was anything of the sort.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, interested said:

Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, may have appeared out of the vacuum, then coalesced into a big black hole before exploding in a big bang.?

 

No. 

There was no black hole in the early universe because the universe was uniformly full of matter. And black holes do not explode. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Strange

[interested]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

No. 

I know space is on average 2.5k which is as near as damn it to 0k

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

What original matter? There's no evidence that there was anything of the sort.

What have you just been discussing with Itoero and Handy andy if it was not the production of matter from the vacuum.

I will go and check everything, I have read, I suspect you are being argumentative and I do not argue especially with experts.

[Handy andy]

14 minutes ago, interested said:

I know space is on average 2.5k which is as near as damn it to 0k

What have you just been discussing with Itoero and Handy andy if it was not the production of matter from the vacuum.

I will go and check everything, I have read, I suspect you are being argumentative and I do not argue especially with experts.

The forum supports the standard model of physics. What is being discussed on this thread is not exactly standard model or accepted theory yet, although it is extremely interesting for interested people.

The video I posted of black holes exploding is not meant to happen under the standard model. It was naughty of me to post it. 

The view that all matter in the universe came out of a very hot big bang at the beginning of time and expanded throughout the universe is the standard model, and what is normally discussed on this forum, no other views can be supported as many people are trying to pass exams and need to learn about the standard models of physics only.

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, interested said:

I know space is on average 2.5k which is as near as damn it to 0k

It is now. But in the past it was warmer. 

56 minutes ago, interested said:

What have you just been discussing with Itoero and Handy andy if it was not the production of matter from the vacuum.

Matter from a vacuum is not the same thing as matter allegedly existing before the big bang. You seem to be conflating two very distinct scenarios.

[Itoero]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Not likely. The energy involved in systems that have been studied is much smaller than the energy required for pair production.

Ok, but a pair is a kind of matter. The collapsing of entanglement can't create matter but does transform energy which can be transformed in mass.(E=mc²).

 

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but a pair is a kind of matter. The collapsing of entanglement can't create matter but does transform energy which can be transformed in mass.(E=mc²).

What mass are you going to transform it into, if not a particle/antiparticle pair?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The view that all matter in the universe came out of a very hot big bang at the beginning of time and expanded throughout the universe is the standard model

No it isn't. The Big Bang model says that the universe has always been completely full of matter. The universe then expanded, cooling the matter. 

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

no other views can be supported as many people are trying to pass exams and need to learn about the standard models of physics only

Nonsense. 

[Itoero]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

What mass are you going to transform it into, if not a particle/antiparticle pair?

 It depends on the quantum  system, the transformed correlation energy spreads trough the quantum system and you measure it as mass or energy. Mass is a form of energy.  When you calculate the mass of a photon for example (with its energy) then most of the mass is actually kinetic energy. Mass is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied...kinetic energy can increase the resistance to acceleration in a certain direction. Then kinetic energy is mass.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Itoero

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

When you calculate the mass of a photon for example

Photons are massless. 

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 It depends on the quantum  system, the transformed correlation energy spreads trough the quantum system and you measure it as mass or energy. Mass is a form of energy.  When you calculate the mass of a photon for example (with its energy) then most of the mass is actually kinetic energy. Mass is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied...kinetic energy can increase the resistance to acceleration in a certain direction.

If the energy is internal to the system then it shows up as mass of the system, so you haven't transformed anything. If the atoms are jiggling around and as a result of a collision internal to the system, an atom was put into an excited state, the mass of the system would not change.

Quote

Then kinetic energy is mass.

Kinetic energy of the center-of-mass of a system is not mass (unless you have redefined what mass means, e.g. relativistic mass)

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

If an object is in motion, that energy shows up in the second term on the right hand side.

[Handy andy]

On ‎29‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:30 PM, Strange said:

No it isn't. The Big Bang model says that the universe has always been completely full of matter. The universe then expanded, cooling the matter. 

Nonsense. 

Strange  I have never claimed the universe is static,

 White holes, wormholes, and black holes are one of many theories that would counter your nonsense  and not part of this thread and only theoretical.

On ‎29‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:03 PM, swansont said:

If the energy is internal to the system then it shows up as mass of the system, so you haven't transformed anything. If the atoms are jiggling around and as a result of a collision internal to the system, an atom was put into an excited state, the mass of the system would not change.

Kinetic energy of the center-of-mass of a system is not mass (unless you have redefined what mass means, e.g. relativistic mass)

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

If an object is in motion, that energy shows up in the second term on the right hand side.

Earlier you suggested I repost the link phi deleted, I cant find it

This is a link to holographic universe covering most of the things on the link phi deleted, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection

The holographic universe explains many things through entanglement, the above link mentions the universe is a big quantum computer etc It sounds like the mind of god to me, but I digress.

I understand energy cant be destroyed and it takes energy to entangle particles in the lab, is this correct ?.

When entanglement is broken, between two quantum particles, possibly due to a quantum particle disappearing down a quantum black hole, what happens to the apparent wormhole energy that was entangling the two particles if it does not become matter? does it become a quantum black hole. ?  

If a wormhole between two black holes breaks what happens to the energy that was contained inside the wormhole between black holes.? 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 Earlier you suggested I repost the link phi deleted, I cant find it

This is a link to holographic universe covering most of the things on the link phi deleted, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection

That was the link

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

The holographic universe explains many things through entanglement, the above link mentions the universe is a big quantum computer etc It sounds like the mind of god to me, but I digress.

I understand energy cant be destroyed and it takes energy to entangle particles in the lab, is this correct ?.

It takes energy in that all things require energy owing to losses (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics) but the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same and unentangled particles.

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

When entanglement is broken, between two quantum particles, possibly due to a quantum particle disappearing down a quantum black hole, what happens to the apparent wormhole energy that was entangling the two particles if it does not become matter? does it become a quantum black hole. ?  

If a wormhole between two black holes breaks what happens to the energy that was contained inside the wormhole between black holes.? 

The idea that wormholes are involved is not mainstream physics. It's not been demonstrated to be true, so the question of what happens with the wormhole can't be answered. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Strange  I have never claimed the universe is static,

I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out that your description of matter expanding to fill space is completely wrong. 

I wonder, do you misrepresent the theory because you don't like it and so create a straw man? Or do you just not understand it (and maybe that is why you dislike it)? Brcausr you keep making completely erroneous statements about it. 

[Handy andy]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out that your description of matter expanding to fill space is completely wrong. 

I wonder, do you misrepresent the theory because you don't like it and so create a straw man? Or do you just not understand it (and maybe that is why you dislike it)? Brcausr you keep making completely erroneous statements about it. 

I do not try to create arguments as you repeatedly do by repeatedly misquoting people as some kind of amusing debating method.

The exploding black hole video you declined to comment on because it is against your belief was related to MS0735.6+7421. To save you yawning and looking for information on it LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_0735.6%2B7421 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

That was the link

It takes energy in that all things require energy owing to losses (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics) but the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same and unentangled particles.

The idea that wormholes are involved is not mainstream physics. It's not been demonstrated to be true, so the question of what happens with the wormhole can't be answered. 

Thanks for the confirmation, I spent quite some time trying to find that link, but had thought it included some other info I had been reading.

Just to confirm due to a possible grammatical slip did you mean to say "the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same as an unentangled pair of particles". Or  "the energy of an entangled pair of particles is the same as an unentangled pair of particles" ?

Yes I agree it is none mainstream, but the concept of things repeating them selves at different scales appealed, quantum particles entangled are a bit  like black holes connected by wormholes sharing matter, seemed to be similar and amusing.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Handy andy said:

 Just to confirm due to a possible grammatical slip did you mean to say "the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same as an unentangled pair of particles". Or  "the energy of an entangled pair of particles is the same as an unentangled pair of particles" ?

Can be. There might be systems in which the entanglement changes the energy, but there are definitely systems where it doesn't. Parametric downconversion, for one.

Quote

Yes I agree it is none mainstream, but the concept of things repeating them selves at different scales appealed, quantum particles entangled are a bit  like black holes connected by wormholes sharing matter, seemed to be similar and amusing.

Non-mainstream physics gets discussed in speculations, and only in its own thread in speculations. You don't defend/discuss a speculation with more speculation. IOW, responses need to be mainstream physics.

[Itoero]

On ‎29‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 6:01 PM, Strange said:

Photons are massless. 

According to the mass-energy equivalence they have (relativistic) mass. Anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa. Do you deny this?

On ‎29‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 6:03 PM, swansont said:

If the energy is internal to the system then it shows up as mass of the system, so you haven't transformed anything. If the atoms are jiggling around and as a result of a collision internal to the system, an atom was put into an excited state, the mass of the system would not change

Yes but this is when you only measure the entire system. How can you not transform energy when you break correlation?

[Strange]

21 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The exploding black hole video you declined to comment on because it is against your belief was related to MS0735.6+7421. To save you yawning and looking for information on it LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_0735.6%2B7421 

The only reason I haven't commented on it is because I haven't seen it which is because it is a video. So thanks for the link which confirms it is nothing to do with black holes exploding. 

And nothing to do with the point I made, which was that your description of the Big Bang was completely wrong. 

[Handy andy]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only reason I haven't commented on it is because I haven't seen it which is because it is a video. So thanks for the link which confirms it is nothing to do with black holes exploding. 

And nothing to do with the point I made, which was that your description of the Big Bang was completely wrong. 

There you go again making stuff up. I never gave any description of a big bang, and neither have you as far as I am aware.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

Yes but this is when you only measure the entire system. How can you not transform energy when you break correlation?

The only way to have extra energy is for the particles to be part of a system.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Handy andy said:

There you go again making stuff up. I never gave any description of a big bang, and neither have you as far as I am aware.

You said:

On 29/08/2017 at 2:24 PM, Handy andy said:

The view that all matter in the universe came out of a very hot big bang at the beginning of time and expanded throughout the universe is the standard model

What is that, if not a (bad) description of the big bang model?