- #1
member 563992
[Moderator's note: this was originally the second part of a post in another thread; it has been moved to this separate thread.]
PLEASE BE ADVISED: I'm a complete ignorant with regards to the details of what I'm about to say and I've never looked at the mathematics of the subject, let alone understand it. So most of what I am about to say comes from pop science. Excuse me in advance if I sound stupid or rhetorical.
----------------
"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" - we hear this again and again. I've heard it and it stuck in my head and it became a law.
Then you gradually get to QM and then you find out, actually, it's the speed of causality that matters while "c" is just a convenient constant (AFAICT). So, entanglement breaks this law at the cost of no (valuable) information being transmitted[1].
Anyways, that's fine, entanglement. And then you learn about dark energy and the rate at which spacetime expands in an accelerated way, which seems to not care about "c", however, this is affecting information. Let's say we've a black hole, near it we've virtual particles ala Hawkin's radiation. "Normally" if this black hole would be lucky, it would eat something.
Let's imagine that this black hole is a sad black hole and instead of getting lucky in devouring some cluster it instead speeds away from all the rest eventually evaporating.
I want to know: around that black hole, how is space behaving when it's "expanding" (what the fudge does this even mean? how is this happening and what are the underlying mechanism for driving this? post-BB of course).
Moreover, in the vecinity of that black hole and within the black hole, the singularity or the firewall of the black hole or whatever you want to call it distorts spacetime in quite a dramatic way, what would the interaction be with the expansion rate/dark energy?DISCLAIMER: I know all of this is still yet to be discovered/known and most of what I asked could be answered with "we don't know yet" -- however, my reason for posting is not to get his answer but to at least get some references from you with papers of what we know and what are the current hypothesis/theories in more detail (as in, with some maths in it).
I'm sick of watching popular discussions simply saying "we don't know yet", "we need a version of quantum gravity", "general relativity just doesn't want to play well with QM", "we're quite stuck since discovery of Higgs as we were hoping for SUSY to be discovered and right now looks like the Standard Model just explains about everything we know but we have these glitches in our model with regards to the graviton" etc. etc. etc.
Any pointers to some papers published in trying to reconcile these in the recent times (i.e. this year) would be awesome for me to understand where we are at the moment.
Thanks also for your time and patience here![1] (this is for me still a bit confusing since you can still do a basic computation of 0 and 1 where 0 means no signal transmitted yet 1 means transmitted depending on observing or not the entangled particle at either of the side -- correct me if I'm wrong: this is implied if the angle of the prepared particle doesn't give 50% chance and the spin is correct -- I don't remember which one was exactly but probably not 1/2)
PLEASE BE ADVISED: I'm a complete ignorant with regards to the details of what I'm about to say and I've never looked at the mathematics of the subject, let alone understand it. So most of what I am about to say comes from pop science. Excuse me in advance if I sound stupid or rhetorical.
----------------
"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" - we hear this again and again. I've heard it and it stuck in my head and it became a law.
Then you gradually get to QM and then you find out, actually, it's the speed of causality that matters while "c" is just a convenient constant (AFAICT). So, entanglement breaks this law at the cost of no (valuable) information being transmitted[1].
Anyways, that's fine, entanglement. And then you learn about dark energy and the rate at which spacetime expands in an accelerated way, which seems to not care about "c", however, this is affecting information. Let's say we've a black hole, near it we've virtual particles ala Hawkin's radiation. "Normally" if this black hole would be lucky, it would eat something.
Let's imagine that this black hole is a sad black hole and instead of getting lucky in devouring some cluster it instead speeds away from all the rest eventually evaporating.
I want to know: around that black hole, how is space behaving when it's "expanding" (what the fudge does this even mean? how is this happening and what are the underlying mechanism for driving this? post-BB of course).
Moreover, in the vecinity of that black hole and within the black hole, the singularity or the firewall of the black hole or whatever you want to call it distorts spacetime in quite a dramatic way, what would the interaction be with the expansion rate/dark energy?DISCLAIMER: I know all of this is still yet to be discovered/known and most of what I asked could be answered with "we don't know yet" -- however, my reason for posting is not to get his answer but to at least get some references from you with papers of what we know and what are the current hypothesis/theories in more detail (as in, with some maths in it).
I'm sick of watching popular discussions simply saying "we don't know yet", "we need a version of quantum gravity", "general relativity just doesn't want to play well with QM", "we're quite stuck since discovery of Higgs as we were hoping for SUSY to be discovered and right now looks like the Standard Model just explains about everything we know but we have these glitches in our model with regards to the graviton" etc. etc. etc.
Any pointers to some papers published in trying to reconcile these in the recent times (i.e. this year) would be awesome for me to understand where we are at the moment.
Thanks also for your time and patience here![1] (this is for me still a bit confusing since you can still do a basic computation of 0 and 1 where 0 means no signal transmitted yet 1 means transmitted depending on observing or not the entangled particle at either of the side -- correct me if I'm wrong: this is implied if the angle of the prepared particle doesn't give 50% chance and the spin is correct -- I don't remember which one was exactly but probably not 1/2)
Last edited by a moderator: