Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)

[Handy andy]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

 

See the first post on this thread, it may help you understand, and the question by interested further down. Did the bigbang not violate conservation of energy

Edited August 25, 2017 by Handy andy

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

See the first post on this thread, it may help you understand, and the question by interested further down.

As far as I can tell, the idea that matter can be created is a figment of Itoero's imagination.

Quote

Did the bigbang not violate conservation of energy

This is a complicated question.

At one level, there doesn't seem to be a violation just because the universe is expanding and cooling. 

On the other hand, the concept of energy and conservation are not clearly defined in GR so there is some debate about whether the conservation of energy makes any sense on cosmological scales. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

[swansont]

31 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.

The devil's in the details. "could be a mechanism" contains no science, and that's where the science needs to be. ANY conjecture that relies on a violation of conservation of energy needs a hell of a lot more than a hand-wave. 

[Handy andy]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The devil's in the details. "could be a mechanism" contains no science, and that's where the science needs to be. ANY conjecture that relies on a violation of conservation of energy needs a hell of a lot more than a hand-wave. 

I went looking for something to back up or blow apart the various claims above, and found the following lecture series which might be interesting to the simple folk like me reading this thread, http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html amusingly it does not disagree too much with what I have been banging on about. I think it is a bit more than a hand wave and you might even like it.  I still haven't read it all but lecture 17 is pertinent, and backs up the quantum foam and matter appearing out of the vacuum claims in a way you might accept.

I did find some nice videos done by oxford university theoretical physics department on matter from the vacuum, but I thought this was better.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Handy andy

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

amusingly it does not disagree too much with what I have been banging on about

Again, the devil is in the details. I don't immediately see anything there that supports the various random claims you have made ("quantum foam gravity", "steady state universe", etc.)

Perhaps you could quote specific sentences that you think agree wth you.

[Itoero]

22 hours ago, Mordred said:

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

Single electrons have a magnetic field. In experiments it looks like an electron tries to know the magnetic field of another.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/19/electrons-magnetic-interactions-isolated-at-long-last Isn't it very possible that certain media (like 0 K quantum systems) cause those 'single' magnetic fields to be excited and turn the single electrons in a Hartree-Fock  wave?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Handy andy said:

I went looking for something to back up or blow apart the various claims above, and found the following lecture series which might be interesting to the simple folk like me reading this thread, http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html amusingly it does not disagree too much with what I have been banging on about. I think it is a bit more than a hand wave and you might even like it.  I still haven't read it all but lecture 17 is pertinent, and backs up the quantum foam and matter appearing out of the vacuum claims in a way you might accept.

I did find some nice videos done by oxford university theoretical physics department on matter from the vacuum, but I thought this was better.

It says quantum foam, but I don't see how it backs you up. Nothing about creation of mass.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

Single electrons have a magnetic field. In experiments it looks like an electron tries to know the magnetic field of another.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/19/electrons-magnetic-interactions-isolated-at-long-last Isn't it very possible that certain media (like 0 K quantum systems) cause those 'single' magnetic fields to be excited and turn the single electrons in a Hartree-Fock  wave?

no you require the 2 particle interaction. Or rather a muliparticle system ie a nucleus

Edited August 25, 2017 by Mordred

[Handy andy]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

It says quantum foam, but I don't see how it backs you up. Nothing about creation of mass.

 

If you read past the introductory drivel. It states

" Hawking, an English theoretical physicist, was one of the first to consider the details of the behavior of a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius was on the level of an atom. These black holes are not necessarily low mass, for example, it requires 1 billion tons of matter to make a black hole the size of a proton. But their small size means that their behavior is a mix of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.

Before black holes were discovered it was know that the collision of two photons can cause pair production. This a direct example of converting energy into mass (unlike fission or fusion which turn mass into energy). Pair production is one of the primary methods of forming matter in the early Universe.

 

Note that pair production is symmetric in that a matter and antimatter particle are produced (an electron and an anti-electron (positron) in the above example).

Hawking showed that the strong gravitational gradients (tides) near black holes can also lead to pair production. In this case, the gravitational energy of the black hole is converted into particles.

"

All this is just theoretical as it has not been directly observed happening. Unlike possibly a big bang, which might be being observed happening in the distant universe from a black hole according to the link I posted which drew no comments other than the usual from strange. One theory is that the heavier elements were created inside a black hole.

This all just raises the question how does a black hole explode. ? Pressure heat, etc lightning produces antimatter from matter, can black holes produce enough antimatter at temperatures and pressures way in excess of the sun, to blow itself apart as in the video I posted above, in response to interested.

[Strange]

That is not the creation of mass, it is the evaporation of the mass of the black hole as energy. 

[Handy andy]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 

If you read past the introductory drivel. It states

" Hawking, an English theoretical physicist, was one of the first to consider the details of the behavior of a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius was on the level of an atom. These black holes are not necessarily low mass, for example, it requires 1 billion tons of matter to make a black hole the size of a proton. But their small size means that their behavior is a mix of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.

Before black holes were discovered it was know that the collision of two photons can cause pair production. This a direct example of converting energy into mass (unlike fission or fusion which turn mass into energy). Pair production is one of the primary methods of forming matter in the early Universe.

 

Note that pair production is symmetric in that a matter and antimatter particle are produced (an electron and an anti-electron (positron) in the above example).

Hawking showed that the strong gravitational gradients (tides) near black holes can also lead to pair production. In this case, the gravitational energy of the black hole is converted into particles.

"

All this is just theoretical as it has not been directly observed happening. Unlike possibly a big bang, which might be being observed happening in the distant universe from a black hole according to the link I posted which drew no comments other than the usual from strange. One theory is that the heavier elements were created inside a black hole.

This all just raises the question how does a black hole explode. ? Pressure heat, etc lightning produces antimatter from matter, can black holes produce enough antimatter at temperatures and pressures way in excess of the sun, to blow itself apart as in the video I posted above, in response to interested.

I will add the following three links, to the above http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae332.cfm re creation of matter from quantum foam, and this one ref formation of black holes https://www.universetoday.com/33454/how-do-black-holes-form/ and this one ref supernovae and the formation of elements up to and including iron https://phys.org/news/2016-03-kinds-supernovae.html#nRlv

Theoretically matter can come out of the vacuum.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Theoretically matter can come out of the vacuum.

Other forms of energy can be converted into mass. Mass is not created (in the way it was implied, i.e. spontaneously)

[Handy andy]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Other forms of energy can be converted into mass. Mass is not created (in the way it was implied, i.e. spontaneously)

So when Iteoro stated "-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. " He was correct, and strange was just "hand waving" as you put it above.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

So when Iteoro stated "-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. " He was correct, and strange was just "hand waving" as you put it above.

Mass or energy cannot "form" and it does not just "appear". It can be converted one to the other. These descriptions are not interchangeable. At best it's sloppy use of terminology. (one reason not to rely on pop-sci descriptions in formulating an argument)

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

So when Iteoro stated "-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. " He was correct, and strange was just "hand waving" as you put it above.

I still have not seen any source that says that energy is created by this mechanism. (Even if the mechanism exists, which appears to be highly speculative in itself.) 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

A hijack of this hijack has been hidden.

 

[Handy andy]

Apologies I did not think the holographic universe link I posted was a hijack. Can I rephrase the question, without referencing the holographic universe link, using accepted theory.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking predicted event horizons should leak a faint glow. Quantum theory says particles all have an antimatter counterpart, and these pairs constantly spring into existence before embracing in mutual oblivion. But a black hole might pull pairs that form at its edge apart: if one of the pair is just outside its clutches, it could escape while the other is pulled across the event horizon. The escaped particle can be seen, in theory, as Hawking radiation.

Has Hawking radiation been detected?.

A black hole could have sufficient energy to pull apart quantum particle pairs, how big and over what duration does a black hole have to exist to pull apart quantum particle pairs?.

Could a quantum black hole suffice to pull apart two entangled particles, in the same way as hawking radiation is postulated to do.?

Has anyone observed or created a quantum black hole in the laboratory yet that can separate particle pairs.?

Is a black hole the same thing as a worm hole.

 

 

[Itoero]

On ‎27‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 1:12 PM, Strange said:

I still have not seen any source that says that energy is created by this mechanism. (Even if the mechanism exists, which appears to be highly speculative in itself.) 

Entanglement contains correlation energy. If you disentangle a system then your transform the correlation energy (conservation of energy). So the collapsing of entanglement must transform/create energy.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Itoero

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Apologies I did not think the holographic universe link I posted was a hijack. Can I rephrase the question, without referencing the holographic universe link, using accepted theory.

The hijack was bringing up your "quantum foam world" pet theory.

42 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Entanglement contains correlation energy. If you disentangle a system then your transform the correlation energy (conservation of energy). So the collapsing of entanglement must transform/create energy.

If the correlation energy decreases, then that energy can be used elsewhere in the system. If it increases, then the act of breaking the entanglement must add energy to the system. No energy is created.

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 In 1974, Stephen Hawking predicted event horizons should leak a faint glow. Quantum theory says particles all have an antimatter counterpart, and these pairs constantly spring into existence before embracing in mutual oblivion. But a black hole might pull pairs that form at its edge apart: if one of the pair is just outside its clutches, it could escape while the other is pulled across the event horizon. The escaped particle can be seen, in theory, as Hawking radiation.

Has Hawking radiation been detected?.

A black hole could have sufficient energy to pull apart quantum particle pairs, how big and over what duration does a black hole have to exist to pull apart quantum particle pairs?.

Could a quantum black hole suffice to pull apart two entangled particles, in the same way as hawking radiation is postulated to do.?

Hawking radiation involves virtual particles. Entanglement involves real particles.  You're talking about separate situations here.

[Handy andy]

The link that was removed ref holographic universe and gravity would help to understand my line of questioning here. The link was not about quantum foam theory, it was about the holographic universe and another theory on gravity, it was not about quantum foam theory which I like, and for various reasons is outside the scope of this forum.

I will restrict myself to two questions so as not to obfuscate what I am asking.

1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.

2) Could the remaining particle decay and be detected as Hawking radiation or something similar.

 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

The link that was removed ref holographic universe and gravity would help to understand my line of questioning here. The link was not about quantum foam theory, it was about the holographic universe and another theory on gravity, it was not about quantum foam theory which I like, and for various reasons is outside the scope of this forum.

Then how about posting the link without mentioning the foam?

3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

I will restrict myself to two questions so as not to obfuscate what I am asking.

1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.

2) Could the remaining particle decay and be detected as Hawking radiation or something similar.

1. Sure. This would not contribute to the black hole evaporating.

2. No. Real particles do not contribute to Hawking radiation.

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If the correlation energy decreases, then that energy can be used elsewhere in the system. If it increases, then the act of breaking the entanglement must add energy to the system. No energy is created.

True, I suppose it depends on the system in which the correlation is broken. Energy can be transformed in mass. It might be very possible that there are systems where correlation energy is transformed in mass.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Itoero

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Has Hawking radiation been detected?.

This is totally off topic. You should start a new thread. But no it hasn't been detected and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future. 

Quote

A black hole could have sufficient energy to pull apart quantum particle pairs, how big and over what duration does a black hole have to exist to pull apart quantum particle pairs?

The smaller a black hole is, the more likely it is and so the stronger the Hawking radiation is. For any black holes we know of the radiation will be pretty much zero. 

BTW the description in terms of virtual particle pairs is, as I understand it, just an analogy for what the math actually say. So it can't be taken too literally. Which probably makes most of the remaining questions moot. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

True, I suppose it depends on the system in which the correlation is broken. Energy can be transformed in mass. It might be very possible that there are systems where correlation energy is transformed in mass.

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

[Handy andy]

This is not the link I originally posted, Phi can repost that one if he sees fit, I saw nothing wrong with it. This one is similiar ref the hologrphic principle.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205 There are many interesting points that interested may be interested in, ref worm hole creation as an explanation for entanglement, but also directly related to creating particles out of nothing the following paragraph is written 

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.

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