Oh my god.  This goes further:

By the argument below, black holes apparently exist, but, in fact, they
"cannot" really exist, because no true singularity forms.  But in the
"classically limiting" (i.e. non-relativistic QM) form, they sort of do.  So
let's reason:

1) By the argument below, black holes "appear" to compress all matter that
enters them until the "end of time", at the end of which they fling all
matter back to their original location in a Big Crunch.  If you think about
it, this has to be done in a very symmetric way, such that everything
replays itself exactly as it started (i.e. CPT symmetry).  So matter comes
out as "anti-matter", everything is reversed, etc.  In the limit of infinite
time, this makes perfect sense. So if you cross an event horizon, you should
theoretically reorganize yourself back to the beginning of time in
spaghettified form (i.e. exactly one bit of information at a time), and in a
way that the universal microscopic structure becomes the universal
microscopic structure.

2) But there are no black holes!  It just looks like there are.  Therefore,
travelling near an "apparent" black hole and "coming back" implies that you
are length contracted, time dilated, exactly as predicted by general
relativity. But we already showed that it "looks like" you should come back
at the "end of time" in CPT reversed fashion.  But in fact, that cannot
happen, so there actually *is* no such thing as anti-matter, and every point
in space is actually its own reflection across time.  And, in fact, every
apparent black hole has the structure of the entire "rest of the universe"
within it, recursively.  On some level, the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are
happening all the time at larger and larger scales, but this is actually
completely symmetric in the sense that everything at a "large" scale must
correspond to everything at a "small scale", at every level. So the
structure at smaller and smaller length scales should be exactly equivalent
to each other, and, in some sense, the "entire universe" is an atom next to
another "entire universe" atom.  The only true universal force is the force
of gravity, and all other forces are the result of converged structure at
different levels.

I don't know what to say anymore.  Oh my god.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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