Blackhole Symmetry

[Olias]

Is the amount of information taken in by a Blackhole, proportional to the amount given out?

[Nereid]

Welcome to Physics Forums Olias!

I'm not sure that I understand your question ... in what way do you think that black holes could 'give out' information?

[Olias]

Welcome to Physics Forums Olias!

I'm not sure that I understand your question ... in what way do you think that black holes could 'give out' information?

Hi Nereid, well lets call an emission of a particle as 'information' recieved/given out (hawking rads), and all particles infalling/entering as being information taken in (Entropy/Area)?

Should I define it some other way?

[Nereid]

Ah, a question about the theory of black holes! If I may re-state it?

If a black hole evaporates completely, via Hawking Radiation, would the information content of a large enough chunk of space around the BH - encompassing all that went into the BH in its creation and all the radiation emitted in its evaporation - have a net gain of zero?

Let me add one question to yours: to what extent are both GR and QFT required for any answer to this question?

[Dayle Record]

Wouldn't a black hole, exactly match what it is attracting/devouring? If it is the antithesis of the matter it devours, doesn't it have to shape its self to meet the incoming?

Would there ever be enough stuff to overwhelm the black holes ability to absorb?

I need a physics lesson here.

[Olias]

Ah, a question about the theory of black holes! If I may re-state it?

If a black hole evaporates completely, via Hawking Radiation, would the information content of a large enough chunk of space around the BH - encompassing all that went into the BH in its creation and all the radiation emitted in its evaporation - have a net gain of zero?

Let me add one question to yours: to what extent are both GR and QFT required for any answer to this question?

Ok Nereid, give me the rate at which a particle coming out-of a Blackhole, obstructs a Particle that is inbound? :confused:

And while your thinking , can you tell me if the outbound Particle re-enters the Blackhole?
Lets keep to the Laws of Physics pertaining to Einstein..being that Blackholes are contained within(theorized) a macro cosmic entity such as Galaxies?

Thanks.

[Loren Booda]

If info out equals info in, why does the great quantum number variety from infalling particles only manifest as angular momentum, charge and mass ("No-hair" theorem) at the surface and with the radiation of the evaporating black hole?

[Olias]

If info out equals info in, why does the great quantum number variety from infalling particles only manifest as angular momentum, charge and mass ("No-hair" theorem) at the surface and with the radiation of the evaporating black hole?

There is I believe certain conditions that make Blackhole's more than just a fanciful idea.

In a early paper by Hawking et al, I do belive there are certain conditions that describe blackholes at different 'Times'. All descriptions are really 'Time' dependant. Example a Blackhole that radiates/output of (Hawking-Rads) can only do so if there is no 'input' obstructions, thus this would have to be 'time-stamped' to an early evolutionary epoch. The early Universe would be 'ripe' for blackholes spitting out particles at a constant rate, really speaking Blackholes that are emitting particles are really Whitehole's (Hawking phrase-Blackholes aint so Black!), this is the ideal production factory for particle creation at Time-Zero, the pre-bigbang.

Matter anti-matter production can be 'time-stamped' into a phase of matter evolution:

Anti-Matter goes into Blackhole = input >>>>
Matter comes out of Whitehole = output.

The process is creationary because of the Time-Phase at the 'bounce' stage of a decelerating previous epoch, one of which would be where Blackholes were 'really' black! For a Blackhole to be not emmiting particles (output) then it must be TAKING in matter/light, it is therfore reasonable to suggest that the prevailing epoch was a CONTRACTING one.

In this sense all matter/light is being absorbed into a Blackhole, its a conversion process that happens at regular intervals, we are percieving the Universe as expanding because the Blackhole remnant at the heart of our Galaxy is no longer taking in vast quantities of Matter/light?

My original question asked here?

edited spelling mistakes!

[Olias]

Can Whiteholes spit out Blackholes?

If one uses the Chandereskar limits, and state that Stars are Whiteholes, the the collapse of a certain Star produces a Blackhole, thus White holes can emit Blackholes.

The Particle horizon of a Blackhole, where viirtual pair-production occurs in a pre-Galactic-Bang can be envisiged as a Blackhole spitting out White-Holes..to and fro, the Entropic Pendulum so to speak!

Kip Thorne and Hawking are about to resolve a long standing issue

[Olias]

Can Whiteholes spit out Blackholes?

If one uses the Chandereskar limits, and state that Stars are Whiteholes, the the collapse of a certain Star produces a Blackhole, thus White holes can emit Blackholes.

The Particle horizon of a Blackhole, where viirtual pair-production occurs in a pre-Galactic-Bang can be envisiged as a Blackhole spitting out White-Holes..to and fro, the Entropic Pendulum so to speak!

Kip Thorne and Hawking are about to resolve a long standing issue


Important paper just out by Willium G Unruh and Ralf Schutzhold :http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408009

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

Is the amount of information taken in by a Blackhole, proportional to the amount given out?

This just out:Olaf Dreyer∗, Fotini Markopoulou†and Lee Smolin ‡

on the 16th Nov:http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409056.pdf

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

This just out:Olaf Dreyer∗, Fotini Markopoulou†and Lee Smolin ‡

on the 16th Nov:http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409056.pdf

The paper, although littered with spelling mistakes!..nevertheless deals with some really interesting problems with LQG.

The coming together of three major players in the development of this area of understanding, shows a very promising LQG evolution is still future bound.

Fotoni Markopoulou is of course of great interest, I, not only as an Observer of Femele Beauty, observe from a specific location, one that is paramount in the understanding of what we are and how we fit together.

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

The paper, although littered with spelling mistakes!..nevertheless deals with some really interesting problems with LQG.

The coming together of three major players in the development of this area of understanding, shows a very promising LQG evolution is still future bound.

Fotoni Markopoulou is of course of great interest, I, not only as an Observer of Femele Beauty, observe from a specific location, one that is paramount in the understanding of what we are and how we fit together.


The link is actually here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0409056.

[Spin_Network]

Is the amount of information taken in by a Blackhole, proportional to the amount given out?

Information in? out?..shake it al' bout!

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504120

[meteor]

Information in? out?..shake it al' bout!

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504120

I took a quick peep to the abstract and was confused at first when I read about the Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, as I never had heard about this mechanism. The few entries in a google for this mechanism seems to hint that is a mechanism that grants mass to particles, so I have to deduce that is simply another name for the widely-known Higgs mechanism. Is hateful that differents names are assigned to the same process

[Spin_Network]

I took a quick peep to the abstract and was confused at first when I read about the Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, as I never had heard about this mechanism. The few entries in a google for this mechanism seems to hint that is a mechanism that grants mass to particles, so I have to deduce that is simply another name for the widely-known Higgs mechanism. Is hateful that differents names are assigned to the same process

Yes, this I agree with.

What is/was?.. not well known is the whole aspect of this thread in its original question, which was posed by the author a number of months before the S W hawking furore at Dublin Conference, and dare I say it the author was pretty specific in asking the question?

Gerard ’t Hooft, will know if anyone does?..that Blackhole Interactions have been really making news in the last year or so,,this current paper by Gerard ’t Hooft, seems to be the most intelligent and interesting I have personally seen for a while..with the exception of D Marolf maybe.

Anyway this paper needs a thorough going over, a task I am trying to do, so thanks for the insight, I will be looking into it again.

[Chronos]

Since when did a singularity have a 'geometry'? I'm not saying it does, but I am saying you need a different coordinate system to explain it. That is the point t' hooft is attempting to make.

[Spin_Network]

Is the amount of information taken in by a Blackhole, proportional to the amount given out?

Just maybe:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505153

and this:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505266

has some interesting options?

[Spin_Network]

Just maybe:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505153

and this:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505266

has some interesting options?

What goes in must come oout! quote from this interesting paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506126


Now it seems that certain Quantities that are infalling, shed "half" their mass when they are outbound?

So according to Relativity..the "outgoing" Energies can cover more ground/distance than Infalling Particles, they(particulates with motion away from the BH) must have "twice" the 'speed' and half the mass of particles that are heading towards a Blackhole!

There is an interesting 'Time' paramiter that that I have somewhere, which has a relevance to Parametric Downconversion of Symmetric Quantities around a Spacetime Junction..as Soon as I have finished with what I am working on at this moment, I will expand further..with links provided.

[Spin_Network]

What goes in must come oout! quote from this interesting paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506126


Now it seems that certain Quantities that are infalling, shed "half" their mass when they are outbound?

So according to Relativity..the "outgoing" Energies can cover more ground/distance than Infalling Particles, they(particulates with motion away from the BH) must have "twice" the 'speed' and half the mass of particles that are heading towards a Blackhole!

There is an interesting 'Time' paramiter that that I have somewhere, which has a relevance to Parametric Downconversion of Symmetric Quantities around a Spacetime Junction..as Soon as I have finished with what I am working on at this moment, I will expand further..with links provided.

Obvious that here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0506166

G.T.Horowitz has formulated the Tachyon Condensation (Evaporation from the blackhole)..and the resulting Black-Strings are "non-visible" Tachyon Space-bubbles surrounding Galaxies for instance, black p-brane's ?

It is really interesting that when one has 'outgoing', particle evaporation, they cannot be observed, but can be static shrouds, or inferred by Galactic Motion, inertia?..Bubbles Of Nothing in the "Witten" Context, and have a different Time paramiter, similar to that of the Proton Decay guestimation of Witten Paper early 2002?

As I stated sometime ago, Witten moving the 'GOALPOSTS'! :rolleyes:

[Spin_Network]

Obvious that here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0506166

G.T.Horowitz has formulated the Tachyon Condensation (Evaporation from the blackhole)..and the resulting Black-Strings are "non-visible" Tachyon Space-bubbles surrounding Galaxies for instance, black p-brane's ?

It is really interesting that when one has 'outgoing', particle evaporation, they cannot be observed, but can be static shrouds, or inferred by Galactic Motion, inertia?..Bubbles Of Nothing in the "Witten" Context, and have a different Time paramiter, similar to that of the Proton Decay guestimation of Witten Paper early 2002?

As I stated sometime ago, Witten moving the 'GOALPOSTS'! :rolleyes:

And thus having just completed my original post (I am the OP!)..using some backdoor techniques I have developed, I now bring the thread to a new direction formulated by the papers:
1)http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0506166

2)http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506126

3)http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505266

4)http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505153

5)http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504120

and last but least :http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171

Now that I know why Blackholes absorb Light and Emit Electrons, I can extrapolate on the Positron Emmision detected around our Galactic Core :rolleyes:

But first a semi-trick question?

Q)Why do Blackholes allow Electrons to be emitted but not Photons? :surprised

[Loren Booda]

Energy and momentum conservation?

[Spin_Network]

Energy and momentum conservation?

I would say that you reply is both correct and incorrect. Correct 'in that there is a conservation process. Incorrect that it is not 'charge''Energy''Momentum' related.

[Spin_Network]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508122

[Spin_Network]

Can Whiteholes spit out Blackholes?

If one uses the Chandereskar limits, and state that Stars are Whiteholes, the the collapse of a certain Star produces a Blackhole, thus White holes can emit Blackholes.

The Particle horizon of a Blackhole, where viirtual pair-production occurs in a pre-Galactic-Bang can be envisiged as a Blackhole spitting out White-Holes..to and fro, the Entropic Pendulum so to speak!

Kip Thorne and Hawking are about to resolve a long standing issue

Seems to be of interest here?:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508122

[Spin_Network]

Seems to be of interest here?:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508122

Maybe this:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508095

[Spin_Network]

The link is actually here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0409056.

Updated here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409056

[Loren Booda]

For a different take on this topic, please see "Black Hole Internal Supersymmetry" at my website below.

[Spin_Network]

Updated here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409056

This paper:http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508124

If one takes the "Brane" Hypothesis, branes are concentric, dimensional borders. If one follows through the intersection of brane collisions:at galactic core's lay Blackholes, these have eminated from the collision of Branes, as the 2 brane passes each other, Gravitons appear and provide a nice background for the appearence of Matter:
two branes heading towards each other >>]+[<<
at an equilibrium moment of impact, the branes pass and Gravitons appear as a shroud/bubble horizon [<<-(+)->>] around the emerging Galaxy. As the branes move away, so does the gravitational shroud
[<<-((((+)))->>] eventually thinning out at the observational horizon:
..<<( ( ( ( (((+))) ) ) ) )>>..

Previous to a Galaxy appearing, the Blackhole follows the Brane Collisions.

If one rewinds Einsteins field equations, the geometry of the Blackhole will be identical to that of the Graviton scattering between two converging Branes, Gravitons appear on the Brane, as the branes then move away, so does the Graviton remain, close/on, to the Observational Horizon.

Now just as the light has a differing wavelength frequency, the Graviton must have a comparable variation, due to the fact that our Galaxy came into existence, at a different Time from other Galaxies? Gravitons are the Gravitational 'Observation-Time' componants of all Galaxies.

'Our' Galactic Gravitons, as observed from us within our Galaxy, are always at our 'observational' horizon, we look outwards and away from the Milky-Way to observe our Graviton Shroud? Thus, looking at our Galactic Core, the Blackhole remnant, will not reveal any Graviton's, only remnant particle production.

If a new Galaxy suddenly appeared, within (inside) our observational horizon, then we could detect the Brane, and coupled Gravitons as they whizzed across our Galaxy, from the direction of the emerging new Galaxy.

The Brane ripple + Graviton particle are equivilent?
: http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh5.html

[Spin_Network]

This paper:http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508124

If one takes the "Brane" Hypothesis, branes are concentric, dimensional borders. If one follows through the intersection of brane collisions:at galactic core's lay Blackholes, these have eminated from the collision of Branes, as the 2 brane passes each other, Gravitons appear and provide a nice background for the appearence of Matter:
two branes heading towards each other >>]+[<<
at an equilibrium moment of impact, the branes pass and Gravitons appear as a shroud/bubble horizon [<<-(+)->>] around the emerging Galaxy. As the branes move away, so does the gravitational shroud
[<<-((((+)))->>] eventually thinning out at the observational horizon:
..<<( ( ( ( (((+))) ) ) ) )>>..

Previous to a Galaxy appearing, the Blackhole follows the Brane Collisions.

If one rewinds Einsteins field equations, the geometry of the Blackhole will be identical to that of the Graviton scattering between two converging Branes, Gravitons appear on the Brane, as the branes then move away, so does the Graviton remain, close/on, to the Observational Horizon.

Now just as the light has a differing wavelength frequency, the Graviton must have a comparable variation, due to the fact that our Galaxy came into existence, at a different Time from other Galaxies? Gravitons are the Gravitational 'Observation-Time' componants of all Galaxies.

'Our' Galactic Gravitons, as observed from us within our Galaxy, are always at our 'observational' horizon, we look outwards and away from the Milky-Way to observe our Graviton Shroud? Thus, looking at our Galactic Core, the Blackhole remnant, will not reveal any Graviton's, only remnant particle production.

If a new Galaxy suddenly appeared, within (inside) our observational horizon, then we could detect the Brane, and coupled Gravitons as they whizzed across our Galaxy, from the direction of the emerging new Galaxy.

The Brane ripple + Graviton particle are equivilent?
: http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh5.html

The result of Rovelli's latest paper above, equates to the Vacuum of Space between Galaxies, being a Quantum State generated at the moment of the appearence of local matter? The SIZE of the Graviton, dictates the 'size' of Matter, and its evolution? as the Graviton gets farther away, the matter locally is dispersing, the Energy Density of Matter fades to that of Quantum Field, until the Quantum Vacuum Equilibrium is restored, and you guessed it, there is a Graviton Burst. But there are limitations to the Quantum State?

For instance, out of an Expanding Vacuum, there are confinment limitations (close to equilibrium), the Vacuum can collapse back rather than continue in expansion. Then this can pull matter at the outer-edge of the Vacuum, backwards, thus the matter is Condensed together, without the Graviton Burst.

Einstein's early intuition of the Cosmological Constant "blunder", being a 'fixed' paramiter of Positive-out-of-Negative, rather than being "one-or-the-other"?

The Graviton in this sense is the propergator(Graviton-Burst) out of the Pure Quantum State Vacuum, prior to the Galaxy appearing. In a near perfect Equilibrated Universe state of: "Matter-Antimatter", "Positive Vacuum-Negative Vacuum" "Big-Bang Big-Crunch".

The Graviton propagated across a pure quantum field[zero-point], the Wavefunction induces the State out of Equilibrium, Galaxies "rip" out of the instabilities, all the emerging matter is 'contained' internally within this Graviton Horizon, all the Light from the Galaxies propagates along the Graviton Route, to the Cosmological Horizon. Another fluctuation out of the Quantum State Vacuum, introduces another Galaxy , dictated by it's own Cosmological Time, Graviton Horizon.

Most of the Homoogeneous energy density has negative Pressure due to the fact that over time, the "positive" Graviton, is "extracting" all positive matter that is contained "locally" close to our Galaxy. Eventually we will look into the night sky and see our "local" surrounding spacetime thinning out, the Dark will become Darker as the Light Energy fades out. The remaining E-m-V will tend to burst forth, a new phase energy out of the old phase energy?

Sakharov Induced Gravity, emerges locally from Einsteins Quantum, Graviton "Dark" Waves, polaroids included :cool:

[Spin_Network]

Should actually mentiont that whilst Rovelli took the Regge route, witten took the "sort-of" route :http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0306083

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0304079

with one or two goalposts needed to be shifted!

What came first. the proton decay or the Quark Superfield?

Nice one Carlo :approve:

[Spin_Network]

Should actually mentiont that whilst Rovelli took the Regge route, witten took the "sort-of" route :http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0306083

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0304079

with one or two goalposts needed to be shifted!

What came first. the proton decay or the Quark Superfield?

Nice one Carlo :approve:

For an interesting overview of "junctions" look here at Marolf:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505048

Just a bit of abstract text from the paper to spurn interest:
The study of boundary layers (i.e., singular sheets of sources with zero thickness) is of longstanding interest in both electromagnetism and general relativity. In addition to approximating smooth solutions such as domain walls,
the class of “thin-wall” solutions provides a useful laboratory in which to explore new phenomena. For example, thin-wall spacetimes have been of much use in investigating so-called “braneworld” scenarios, first suggested in the modern context in [1, 2, 3], in which the visible 3+1 universe is confined to a submanifold of some higher dimensional spacetime. In particular, the phenomenon by which gravity can become localized along such a domain wall was discovered by Randall and Sundrum [4, 5] by considering the limit of an infinitely thin wall. Thin-wall spacetimes are also historically of interest in exploring gravitational collapse (see e.g. [6]), typically in the context of spherical shells.


Thin-wall spacetimes are also historically of interest in exploring gravitational collapse (see e.g. [6]), typically in the context of spherical shells.
Although the stress tensor must diverge at an infinitely thin wall, the associated singularities in Einstein-Hilbert gravity are often mild. For familiar cases, these singularities serve merely to simplify the equations of motion by turning the differential equations for the fields into finite difference equations, known as “junction conditions,” governing the discontinuities of various fields across the thin wall.

[Spin_Network]

Should actually mentiont that whilst Rovelli took the Regge route, witten took the "sort-of" route :http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0306083

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0304079

with one or two goalposts needed to be shifted!

What came first. the proton decay or the Quark Superfield?

Nice one Carlo :approve:

These recent papers are the defining moment of new interpretation?:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109035

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509230

Interesting linking to the "no singularities" in the first paper.

Plus this is giving creedence to one or two or three of my theories which caused my being banned, at least three times! :biggrin:

[Spin_Network]

This is cool:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509112
need to confirm something here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509108

and this needs some inquiry:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509109

[Spin_Network]

What goes in must come oout! quote from this interesting paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506126


Now it seems that certain Quantities that are infalling, shed "half" their mass when they are outbound?

So according to Relativity..the "outgoing" Energies can cover more ground/distance than Infalling Particles, they(particulates with motion away from the BH) must have "twice" the 'speed' and half the mass of particles that are heading towards a Blackhole!

There is an interesting 'Time' paramiter that that I have somewhere, which has a relevance to Parametric Downconversion of Symmetric Quantities around a Spacetime Junction..as Soon as I have finished with what I am working on at this moment, I will expand further..with links provided.

New theorem paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509063 :uhh: :blushing:

[Spin_Network]

New theorem paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509063 :uhh: :blushing:
New Bousso collaboration paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511084
and a new paper of interest by Robert B. Mann, Donald Marolf:
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511096

[Spin_Network]

The result of Rovelli's latest paper above, equates to the Vacuum of Space between Galaxies, being a Quantum State generated at the moment of the appearence of local matter? The SIZE of the Graviton, dictates the 'size' of Matter, and its evolution? as the Graviton gets farther away, the matter locally is dispersing, the Energy Density of Matter fades to that of Quantum Field, until the Quantum Vacuum Equilibrium is restored, and you guessed it, there is a Graviton Burst. But there are limitations to the Quantum State?
For instance, out of an Expanding Vacuum, there are confinment limitations (close to equilibrium), the Vacuum can collapse back rather than continue in expansion. Then this can pull matter at the outer-edge of the Vacuum, backwards, thus the matter is Condensed together, without the Graviton Burst.
Einstein's early intuition of the Cosmological Constant "blunder", being a 'fixed' paramiter of Positive-out-of-Negative, rather than being "one-or-the-other"?
The Graviton in this sense is the propergator(Graviton-Burst) out of the Pure Quantum State Vacuum, prior to the Galaxy appearing. In a near perfect Equilibrated Universe state of: "Matter-Antimatter", "Positive Vacuum-Negative Vacuum" "Big-Bang Big-Crunch".
The Graviton propagated across a pure quantum field[zero-point], the Wavefunction induces the State out of Equilibrium, Galaxies "rip" out of the instabilities, all the emerging matter is 'contained' internally within this Graviton Horizon, all the Light from the Galaxies propagates along the Graviton Route, to the Cosmological Horizon. Another fluctuation out of the Quantum State Vacuum, introduces another Galaxy , dictated by it's own Cosmological Time, Graviton Horizon.
Most of the Homoogeneous energy density has negative Pressure due to the fact that over time, the "positive" Graviton, is "extracting" all positive matter that is contained "locally" close to our Galaxy. Eventually we will look into the night sky and see our "local" surrounding spacetime thinning out, the Dark will become Darker as the Light Energy fades out. The remaining E-m-V will tend to burst forth, a new phase energy out of the old phase energy?
Sakharov Induced Gravity, emerges locally from Einsteins Quantum, Graviton "Dark" Waves, polaroids included :cool:

A new paper by Stephen .D.H.Hsu and Brian.M.Murray have detailed an interesting "Graviton" phase to the initial Universe :
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512033

where there is handwaving to the "Graviton Heatbath" as likely source of nucleation "bubbles-of-nothing"?

The facts of this is that, Blackholes are initially Gravitons, condensed out of Inflation, but they actually "expand", to contain matter within their boundaries, thus evolve from Galactic Cores, therby the Gravitational signiture of Galactic Blackholes are really anchor points(gravitational source) within a phase space that extends, but does not contain Graviton "particles", this may be why Galactic Halo's are in a sense 'Graviton-Shrouds', their evolution is dependant on the initial condition, which is horizonal dependant, because this set at the transitional unique "early" Phase?

Very interesting paper when one couples it to the Rovelli above Paper.

[Spin_Network]

New theorem paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509063 :uhh: :blushing:

Another great paper that puts "information" into a precise perspective:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507287

and also this paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512268
appears to have relevence to thread, abstract:

The most entropic fluid can be related to a dense gas of black holes that we use to study the beginning of the universe. We encounter difficulties to compatibilize an adiabatic expansion with the growing area for the coalescence of black holes. This problem may be circumvented for a quantum black hole fluid, whose classical counterpart can be described by a percolating process at the critical point. This classical regime might be related to the energy content of the current universe.

Actually there is another recent paper by Ulf Leonhardt:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510071

that has an interesting correspondance with the last paper(entropic fluid) above.

One can ask why is it that in an expansive medium, such as the expanding universe, do energies contract?, energies such as matter (with respect to the expansion-field?).

If the Universe was in contraction, then Particles of matter would be getting bigger, with respect to the field?..could the Universe have evolved from an initial localized single Particle?..being that the reversed field equations that give birth to the Big-Bang model, has at its fundemental premise:The Universe is evolving from a given single location, of the size and order comprable to that of a volume , less than single atom?

[Spin_Network]

In this thread by marcus:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104539

he has an interesting correspondence from Smolin:
1)"why the neutron is a bit heavier than the proton"

could it be that the fact is that the Universe is in Expansion?..had the Universe been in Contracting phase, then would the Particles size be reversed?..ie would the Neutron be lighter than the Proton?