Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)

[Strange]

Just now, Itoero said:

If a photon has no mass then how can it have momentum?

It is related to its energy. Even classical electromagnetic waves have momentum.

http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/peskin/papers/wave_momentum.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html

[Itoero]

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is related to its energy. Even classical electromagnetic waves have momentum.

http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/peskin/papers/wave_momentum.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html

Yes, and E =mc²....energy is mass...why don't you acknowledge this?

[Strange]

Just now, Itoero said:

Yes, and E =mc²....energy is mass...why don't you acknowledge this?

Because it is not true. And that equation does not apply to photons (you need the full form of the equation).

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

I posted this on page 2 of this thread

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.

No, he didn't. Not the way we normally understand the phrase.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

"An enlightening treatment of the Schwinger effect is obtained by considering the world-line path integral of a particle in Euclidean signature..."

it's a theory paper. He's at the Center for Theoretical Physics. No co-authors. This wasn't done in a lab.
 

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Particles in for example a zero temperature quantum system don't create extra energy, they transform energy.

There are two meanings for the word 'mass' in special relativity. There is invariant mass and relativistic mass. If a photon has no mass then how can it have momentum?

There is no such thing (in reality) as a zero temperature system.

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

for m=0, you get E=pc

The thing is, "relativistic mass" isn't actually an original part of relativity. It was added in later. When Einstein derived E=mc², the assumption was that the particle was at rest. Applying it to a particle in motion is incorrect. That's why they had to come up with a new name for it. Generally speaking, when you discuss mass, it is assumed that you mean rest mass. Relativistic mass is IMO sloppy.  I've seen it mentioned in classes for non-majors. Not so much when talking to physicists.

[Itoero]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because it is not true. And that equation does not apply to photons (you need the full form of the equation).

No. m (rel) =E/c². The mass energy equivalence is for invariant or rest mass and relativistic mass. The equation of course differs depending on what your calculating but E=mc² is the starting point.

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No. m (rel) =E/c². The mass energy equivalence is for invariant or rest mass and relativistic mass. The equation of course differs depending on what your calculating but E=mc² is the starting point.

That is not the starting point. It is a simplification. And photons have no rest mass so it doesn't apply to them.

And mass and energy are not the same thing.

[Handy andy]

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

No, he didn't. Not the way we normally understand the phrase.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

"An enlightening treatment of the Schwinger effect is obtained by considering the world-line path integral of a particle in Euclidean signature..."

it's a theory paper. He's at the Center for Theoretical Physics. No co-authors. This wasn't done in a lab.
 

There is no such thing (in reality) as a zero temperature system.

.

Thanks for the link I need to do a bit of background reading to refresh my brain, on some of the terms.

What do you think of the claims in the paper and specifically " explicitly demonstrate that a particle and an anti-particle, pair produced in an applied field, are connected by a wormhole (in the dual geometry), and so this wormhole should be associated with the entanglement between them. " Is a wormhole more than theoretical and is it associated with entanglement in your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Does anyone have a good link to quantum phase transitions at or near absolute zero? All I can find is pop science and its making me speculate. I am specifically thinking of quantum fluctuations of quantum particles in a hypothetical very close to zero kelvin space prior to the hypothetical big bang. I have found loads of stuff on bose einstein condensates and gases etc, but not specifically fundamental particles.

The distance apart things can be entangled increases apparently at very cold temperatures. I asked a question earlier ref could two entangled particles appear at opposite sides of the universe in theory at least.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

There are no quantum transitions at absolute zero.

Fundamental fermions will not undergo Bose-Einstein condensation, for what I hope is an obvious reason.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The distance apart things can be entangled increases apparently at very cold temperatures.

Do youv have a reference to that? I am slightly surprised by that. 

[Handy andy]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

There are no quantum transitions at absolute zero.

Fundamental fermions will not undergo Bose-Einstein condensation, for what I hope is an obvious reason.

You are twisting my words I was after information, ref fermions at near absolute zero. Other than the usual all I have turned up is things like the bose Einstein states and I was not saying they are linked.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Do youv have a reference to that? I am slightly surprised by that. 

I will see if I can find the email it came in, it may take some time. I am following a lot of threads to keep me amused, and should take notes, and mostly don't.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The reason for my question was because, I want to know what quantum fluctuations and or transitions could produce stable entangled particles, the entanglement distance increases with reduced temperature(I think I remember which post mentioned that, and its nothing to do with Bose Einstein states)

OK I am forced to speculate.

The big bang began with multiple quantum fluctuations that filled all of space or an area of space, which caused an explosion and heat. Before that heat was created there was quantum fluctuations, those fluctuations would have been at a very cold temperature, occupying all of space, what ever you perceive that to be. Those quantum fluctuations brought fundamental particles into existence, which was at absolute zero or there abouts. Space itself does not exist without virtual particle fluctuations, space is not empty it is expanding between galaxies as we know.

A lightning ball is most likely  a mixture of entangled fundamental particles a mixture of positrons electrons and ions. The light given of is in the visible spectrum indicating there are electrons either recombining with ions, or low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum. The Tunguska event was caused according to eyewitness reports by a large slowly moving ball that came down to approx 5 miles up and went bang levelling a large area of Tunguska leaving no trace of what it was, it is thought it may have been an antimatter matter explosion. It may have been either created by the high altitude electrical activity all over Europe that was happening at the time, or it drifted in from outer space as an example of what caused the big bang. If all of space was a full of entangled fundamental particles or multiple lightning balls that could squeeze each other they might go bang and cause some heating effect and a big bang.

Oh and Space was not created by a big bang, space created the big bang by allowing quantum fluctuations in space, as is happening today causing the visible universe to expand, and seemingly contract around matter holding galaxies together.

I will see if I can find that link ref quantum particles and entanglement distances, it may take some time.

 

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

 A lightning ball is most likely  a mixture of entangled fundamental particles a mixture of positrons electrons and ions. The light given of is in the visible spectrum indicating there are electrons either recombining with ions, or low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum.  

In what way would the combination of fundamental particles create light in the visible spectrum? e-e+ recombination gives off 2 511 keV photons. That's as low as it gets.

23 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Oh and Space was not created by a big bang, space created the big bang by allowing quantum fluctuations in space, as is happening today causing the visible universe to expand, and seemingly contract around matter holding galaxies together.

You need to have a model and/or evidence to present speculations (you've been told this before) . How is this falsifiable? What specific predictions can you make?

[Handy andy]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In what way would the combination of fundamental particles create light in the visible spectrum? e-e+ recombination gives off 2 511 keV photons. That's as low as it gets.

You need to have a model and/or evidence to present speculations (you've been told this before) . How is this falsifiable? What specific predictions can you make?

You are twisting my words again, I know gamma rays are not in the visible spectrum. But the light appearing from lightning balls is, I suggested ions recombining or other particles to create visible light. An e-e+ collision would as you say produce a gamma radiation which I know is not in the visible spectrum, it could however collide with other atoms and ionize them, which when the electrons recombined with the nucleus would give of photons.

The main evidence I can present of a large fundamental particle possibly existing of matter and antimatter would be the Tunguska event. No other viable provable scenario has been presented except exploding UFO's, or meteorites that exploded leaving no trace. The only evidence for the Tunguska event is a flattened forest, and eye witness reports, including meteorological data pointing to a huge high altitude thunderstorm which kept most of northern Europe in daylight prior to the event for a few days. All of which is very unreliable the forest could have just fallen over, the sky was not illuminated by a high level thunderstorm, and the eye witnesses never saw a slow moving huge ball descend into the atmosphere. One Prediction I could make is that it could happen again, if it was fuelled by a huge amount of natural gas escaping from the Tunguska due to an earth quake, it could happen when BP loses control of a gas drilling operation somewhere. etc  

This is not the link strange requested(I am still looking for that one) but it is one alluding to quantum phase transitions at very cold temperatures, which you stated above does not happen. I want to know more on this subject, the pop science link does not give enough detail https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dynamical-quantum-phase-transitions-interacting.html

I would like to know what quantum fluctuations would cause matter to come into existence?. The big bang has the fluctuations before the big explosion which did not happen at a singularity as pop science explains, it happened every where in an already existing and expanding space. I want a feasible mechanism not a explanation that matter has always existed explanation starting in a super dense state. 

The reason for my speculation is that trying to get you guys to speculate is like trying to get blood out of a stone.

I keep trawling to find the link for strange.  

 

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.

Again not related to the thing I am looking for strange for but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

A virtual particle does not precisely obey the energy–momentum relation m²c⁴ = E² − p²c². Its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative.^[4]:110 This is expressed by the phrase off mass shell.^[3]:119 The probability amplitude for a virtual particle to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. As a consequence, a real photon is massless and thus has only two polarization states, whereas a virtual one, being effectively massive, has three polarization states.

Quantum tunnelling may be considered a manifestation of virtual particle exchanges

Virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and then mutually annihilate. In some cases, it however is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles, as described in the link above.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

You are twisting my words again, I know gamma rays are not in the visible spectrum. But the light appearing from lightning balls is, I suggested ions recombining or other particles to create visible light. An e-e+ collision would as you say produce a gamma radiation which I know is not in the visible spectrum, it could however collide with other atoms and ionize them, which when the electrons recombined with the nucleus would give of photons.

You said "low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum". That's a direct quote. How exactly did I "twist" your words? The mechanism you describe above is nothing like fundamental particles combining.

 

Quote

The main evidence I can present of a large fundamental particle possibly existing of matter and antimatter would be the Tunguska event.

If the antimatter came from the lightning then the amount of it has to be limited by the energy being generated by the thunderstorm. Tunguska weighs in at tens of megatons of TNT. Thunderstorms, which deposit energy over a period of hours, don't even come in at Hiroshima levels, which is 1000x less than Tunguska.

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

 This is not the link strange requested(I am still looking for that one) but it is one alluding to quantum phase transitions at very cold temperatures, which you stated above does not happen.  

You need to pay closer attention while reading, because I never said that.

[Manticore]

"But now, 105 years later, scientists have revealed that the Tunguska devastation was indeed caused by a meteorite. A group of Ukrainian, German, and American scientists have identified its microscopic remains. Why it took them so many years makes for a fascinating tale about the limits of science and how we are pushing them."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/mystery-solved-meteorite-caused-tunguska-devastation/

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The big bang began with multiple quantum fluctuations that filled all of space or an area of space, which caused an explosion and heat. Before that heat was created there was quantum fluctuations, those fluctuations would have been at a very cold temperature, occupying all of space, what ever you perceive that to be.

A quantum fluctuation conserves energy. Where did the energy to heat the universe (from near zero to billions of degrees) come from?

[Itoero]

23 hours ago, Strange said:

That is not the starting point. It is a simplification. And photons have no rest mass so it doesn't apply to them.

And mass and energy are not the same thing.

So the mass energy equivalence is a simplification? Photons have no rest mass because they have no rest energy.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Space was not created by a big bang, space created the big bang 

I don't see much difference in meaning between those. The Big Bang is a description of expanding space, so it is quite reasonable to say that [expanding] space created the Big Bang [theory].

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

So the mass energy equivalence is a simplification? 

Mass and energy have an equivalence - one can be changed into the other - they are not the same thing.

[Handy andy]

3 hours ago, Manticore said:

"But now, 105 years later, scientists have revealed that the Tunguska devastation was indeed caused by a meteorite. A group of Ukrainian, German, and American scientists have identified its microscopic remains. Why it took them so many years makes for a fascinating tale about the limits of science and how we are pushing them."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/mystery-solved-meteorite-caused-tunguska-devastation/

Hey Manticore thanks for that, I knew there were microscopic fragments found in a layer but nothing convincing, +100 if I could. You will have to do with a +1

 

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

A quantum fluctuation conserves energy. Where did the energy to heat the universe (from near zero to billions of degrees) come from?

That's why I was suggesting other folk speculate .

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't see much difference in meaning between those. The Big Bang is a description of expanding space, so it is quite reasonable to say that [expanding] space created the Big Bang [theory].

 

I think it is a difference and helps my understanding.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

You said "low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum". That's a direct quote. How exactly did I "twist" your words? The mechanism you describe above is nothing like fundamental particles combining.

 

If the antimatter came from the lightning then the amount of it has to be limited by the energy being generated by the thunderstorm. Tunguska weighs in at tens of megatons of TNT. Thunderstorms, which deposit energy over a period of hours, don't even come in at Hiroshima levels, which is 1000x less than Tunguska.

You need to pay closer attention while reading, because I never said that.

I need to pay closer attention to what I am writing as well as what I am reading, this has been pointed out in the past.

Manticore has covered the Tunguska event, to my satisfaction.

Would you or anyone else like to speculate ref quantum fluctuations and phase transitions at near absolute zero of fundamental particles and virtual particles in a zero gravity environment. ?

A further speculation ref black holes is they destroy matter, by heating it and converting it to antimatter where it produces gamma rays via e+ and e- collisions.

I think that is me done for a while, I have some stuff I need to attend too. Thank you all for your input.

[Itoero]

On ‎5‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 5:25 PM, Strange said:

Mass and energy have an equivalence - one can be changed into the other - they are not the same thing.

Then relativistic mass doesn't exist?

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Then relativistic mass doesn't exist?

Relativistic mass is unnecessary. It's not used in many of the physics equations that we have, and using it will give you the wrong answer. It's a hack developed by rearranging an equation and ignoring the assumptions that went into that equation, which is often a recipe for disaster, for both calculation and concept.

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Then relativistic mass doesn't exist?

This is a good article on how the concept of "relativistic mass" came about, why it is used, why it can cause confusion and therefore why many people think it shouldn't be used: http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq_old/Relativity/SR/mass.html

 

[Handy andy]

On ‎05‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:10 PM, Manticore said:

"But now, 105 years later, scientists have revealed that the Tunguska devastation was indeed caused by a meteorite. A group of Ukrainian, German, and American scientists have identified its microscopic remains. Why it took them so many years makes for a fascinating tale about the limits of science and how we are pushing them."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/mystery-solved-meteorite-caused-tunguska-devastation/

Sorry Manticore, on reflection this link is nothing new. The explosion gave of a lot of heat is obvious and is the only thing the scientists have proof for, this was observed 105 years ago. The scientists do not take into account actual eye witness reports that the thing that exploded whilst moving slowly across the sky etc. Thee meteorological observations of very high level electrical activity was not considered, this could have been a close encounter with a collapsed solar flare, ie a plasma collapse creating a huge lightning ball in space etc, there are many explanations. The scientists have simply ignored the eye witnesses reports of a slow moving object exploding, and come to the conclusion a meteor must have entered the atmosphere at horrendous speed and exploded leaving only a trace. They don't even speculate what the meteor was made up of.

It is also little to do with this thread, other than I think it came about re some mention of black holes exploding, and me suggesting matter may be being converted to antimatter due to heat and pressure inside a black hole similar to what is observed in lightning plasma's.  Matter may be being continually created in expanding space and being destroyed in black holes.

Swanson confirmed that in theory matter can be created via quantum black holes earlier. I was going to carry on posting, but I have other things to do now. I just wanted to correct my view on the claims in your link.  Thanks for the link any way, but on reflection I just don't believe it to be anything new ref Tunguska.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Handy andy

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Handy andy said:

Matter may be being continually created in expanding space

There is no evidence for this.And it would violate conservation of energy. Why do you keep repeating it?

4 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

They don't even speculate what the meteor was made up of.

From that link:

Quote

Victor Kvasnytsya from the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and his colleagues used the latest imaging and spectroscopy techniques to identify aggregates of carbon minerals—diamond, lonsdaleite, and graphite. Lonsdaleite in particular is known to form when carbon-rich material is suddenly exposed to a shock wave created by an explosion, such as that of a meteorite hitting Earth. The lonsdaleite fragments contain even smaller inclusions of iron sulphides and iron-nickel alloys, troilite and taenite, which are characteristic minerals found in space-based objects such as meteorites. The precise combination of minerals in these fragments point to a meteorite source. It is near-identical to similar minerals found in an Arizona impact.

So, you are right. They don't speculate. They use chemical analysis.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Sorry Manticore, on reflection this link is nothing new. The explosion gave of a lot of heat is obvious and is the only thing the scientists have proof for, this was observed 105 years ago. The scientists do not take into account actual eye witness reports that the thing that exploded whilst moving slowly across the sky etc. Thee meteorological observations of very high level electrical activity was not considered, this could have been a close encounter with a collapsed solar flare, ie a plasma collapse creating a huge lightning ball in space etc, there are many explanations. The scientists have simply ignored the eye witnesses reports of a slow moving object exploding, and come to the conclusion a meteor must have entered the atmosphere at horrendous speed and exploded leaving only a trace. They don't even speculate what the meteor was made up of.

If you're going to bring it up, then you should provide a link to these alleged eyewitness reports. I thought part of this mystery was that it was in a remote area. 

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

It is also little to do with this thread, other than I think it came about re some mention of black holes exploding, and me suggesting matter may be being converted to antimatter due to heat and pressure inside a black hole similar to what is observed in lightning plasma's.  Matter may be being continually created in expanding space and being destroyed in black holes.

The heat and pressure inside a black hole is not comparable to what happens inside a plasma.

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Swanson confirmed that in theory matter can be created via quantum black holes earlier. I was going to carry on posting, but I have other things to do now. I just wanted to correct my view on the claims in your link.  Thanks for the link any way, but on reflection I just don't believe it to be anything new ref Tunguska.

I confirmed what, now?

You have a talent for reading something and concluding something very different from what was written

[Handy andy]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

 

You have a talent for reading something and concluding something very different from what was written

The eyewitnesses may have reported the event to scientists, the explosion was estimated 5 miles up, a lot of people far away could have seen it. Some eyewitnesses reported being blown of their feet, would they be close enough. LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

I agree I am talented, but with misinformation and straw arguments posted all over the forum, what are we to think.

The following link may be interesting to interested and itoero ref particle creation in space, I personally find it interesting because it disagrees with what some people posted on another thread. Theoretical Photons can turn into very low energy axioms, if I am reading it right.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-exchanges-identity-deep-space.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter