entangled galaxies?

[ydoaPs]

entangled particles are just the same particle separated by space (yes, i know it makes no sense, but that is how they can transmit info faster than light). so, is it possible that when the universe was created, enough particles were entangled in such a way that there are entangled galaxies? maybe even planets or asteroids?

[1veedo]

Yes.

 

In quantum cosmology (the whole a + b = 0 thing), universes can not only be entagled by each other but groups of similar universes can clump together. If there are very diferent universes, then they dotn interact with each other much. If they have similarities, then their similarities will sum or interact with each other, affecting the universes/difernt universes' paths etc

 

If there is a similarity from the 'future' of another universe, it will interact with the 'past' of the other universe. This way, you get "strings" of universes, and you also need a time quanta called a chronon. It gets kindof confusing because the process just goes on and on and on, adn the sum of EVERYTHING equals 0; thats why everything seems so symetrical and "elegant".

 

PS: This is why quantum mechanics has two+ dimensions of time, and more then just 3D of space.

[ydoaPs]

i thought time was one-dimensional. what happened to that? linky to your 2d time?

[Severian]

PS: This is why quantum mechanics has two+ dimensions of time' date=' and more then just 3D of space.[/quote']

 

Oh good grief. Usual formulations of QM have one time dimension, not two. IIRC there was some work done on multiple time dimensions by Dirac(?) but it is by no means standard.

 

And quantum mechanical entanglement of galaxies cannot occur because there are too many particles. A large sample of particles will statistically wash out the qm entanglement, leaving observables in the two galaxies uncorrelated.

[1veedo]

heres a link:

http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/universe.html

[Sayonara]

That page demonstrates little to none of the authority one would desire of reference material brought into a discussion such as this.

[1veedo]

??

 

It merely discuses what yourdadonapogos was originally talking about...I thought he might be interested in reading it.

[Sayonara]

Oh, it looks like you are replying to Severian with it.

[Severian]

Let's try and be a little more scientific with our references shall we?

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910207

 

Notice that even the authors admit that two time dimensions is very unconventional and point out that it is really hard to accommodate. Also notice that the extra time diemsion is introduced by having a metric (1,1,-1,-1,-1): the '1's denote the time dimensions, as it is the signature of the metric which is the only thing that differentiates 'space' from 'time' (the usual metric being (1,-1,-1,-1)).

[1veedo]

I'm not trying to argue with time.

 

There *are* models that require more then one. One example is M-Theory cosmology; colliding brane hypothesis.

 

Btw, that theory is very similar to the multiuniverse proposal in inflation devised by Allan Guth (sp) which is also 2D. It was in his book that I most remember the explanation for quantum mechanics requiring 2D of time to work with inflation, and attempted to hit on in the other thread.

 

Its not really so much physics, but in cosmology I’ve noticed that frequently there is more then one time dimension. If you really want to talk about this more keep it in the other thread, please.