Hi Russell,

I know I replied already, but I wanted to elaborate on a physics conjecture
that I had:

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>wrote:

> > We can also conclude that, since inflation speed is related to the
> > energy density of the universe, and the size of the universe is
> > finite, then the universe should expand at an ever slowing rate until
> > possibly stopping.  This may or may not be true, given our current
> > cosmological picture (the main whole in our understanding lies in the
> > dark matter / dark energy).  But if you consider something else, you
> > get a very interesting postdiction: basically, the EPR paradox and
> > quantum entanglement implies that the number of distinct accessible
> > states for two (classically) closed systems together may be less than
> > the number each has individually, because the two could be entangled
> > (and, in the limit of complete entanglement, have only 1 accessible
> > successor state).  This implies that mass-energy is *not* classically
> > additive unless you take into account all quantum entangement within a
> > system.  So, this suggests that, there may be "negative pressure
> > energy" present in the universe in proportion to the amount of net
> > entanglement present between states.  This, in a nutshell, is a
> > postdiction of "dark energy" (and possibly dark matter?).
>
> Interesting...
>
>
I think, In fact, this *predicts* the following:

1) The EPR paradox may be explainable using a relativistic hidden variables
in the following manner: as two states become entangled, the net
gravitational pull of the combined system will decrease by exactly one "bit"
worth of gravity.  As the states are brought further apart, this reduces the
gravitational pull of the combined system such that it looks like, from the
"outside", energy has been lost, and the net gravitational energy of the
system decreases.  This energy is regained as the two states are brought
back together again, finally being erased when the two enter superposition
again.

And:

2) Gravitational singularities cannot truly exist and the no-hair theorem is
incorrect.  If black holes truly had no hair and were a single quantum pure
state, then they would have zero net gravitational pull, so, in fact, no
true singularity can ever form.  From the outside perspective, the
information of anyone entering a black-hole appears to be "lost", but must
in fact, really radiate in some form which is entangled with the matter
beyond the event horizon in a symmetric manner.  This information must be,
by definition, unobservable, because matter beyond the horizon is
unobservable. This is (a form of) dark energy, since we will never be able
to observe it, even in principle: it is basically is the net entanglement of
matter within black holes with the "rest of the universe", which is, in a
sense, pulling "back" on the black hole, keeping it from fully collapsing on
itself, exactly enough to prevent the formation of a singularity.  Over
time, the "rest of the universe" wins out, pulling the black-hole apart and
basically replaying back all the information "lost" to the black hole back
again.  So in a sense, anything going "into" a black hole can, in fact,
eventually "come out", albeit in very spaghettified form.  Furthermore, this
provides a fully deterministic model for predicting an end-state Big Crunch:
essentially, the end of the universe is when all the very last surviving
black holes "unroll themselves" all at once, collapsing the universe back
down to a single point, until it once again becomes energetic enough to
force another exact Big Bang.

Anyway, I really think this strongly suggests some form of relativistic
hidden variables as the correct theory of both QM and GR.  Also, I agree
that this is really MWI in disguse, but that this is actually a *good*
thing, since it means that locally we preserve the MWI picture exactly but
can also make hard predictions on a cosmological (and singularity) scale,
which is exactly where GM and GR currently break down.  Also, another
advantage is that, as I understand it, current non-relativistic Bohmian
mechanics currently predicts the Born rules as arriving probabilistically in
the limit of large numbers of unentangled particles, which most forms of MWI
cannot do.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you!

F.H.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to