Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Quantum Physics

Quantum Physics Quantum Physics Help Forum

Like Tree12Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Aug 31st 2016, 08:22 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 50
ER=EPR Information Paradox Solution

The recent observations of Professor Leonard Susskind(ER=EPR/GR-Quantum Unification) have allowed an exercise I undertook to complete some 20 years ago to have been provided a conclusion. I submit the proposals for which I have been left no other resolution that accounts for the observable.

Proposal: The model of light reflection off an atom is incorrect in that an electron from the nucleon only provides the field that allows a captured photon to momentarily collapse to an electron without a nucleon specific electron being required to jump shells.

Proposal: Hawking Radiation provides the solution to the information paradox.

To back up from my conclusions that the model of light refraction off an atom is wrong and that Hawking radiation is the solution to the information paradox I will supply the short description of the fields that develop instanton shift that has somewhat guided the exercise to these conclusions.

Empty space(as relevant to the conservation of momentum) that is void of substantial particle is 2 dimensional. The property of this 2d state is exponential collapse. This is exhibited within vacuum as virtual particles.

A photon provides evacuation of spatial collapse(uniformity of momenta), to the vacuum. Photon polarisation differentiates the exponential but does not eliminate collapse compression. The path of a photon is differentiated by the load it places upon the vacuum. If a photon is not absorbed it's path will not end in simple dissipation. Due to it's entanglement with it's anti-photon and the separation of '3d spaces' this provides, the effect of vacuum compression is to collapse the elongated photon into a highly ionised electron. It is likely a photon that has reached the limit of it's expression of polarisation either requires a neutrino to collapse to an it's c-ray state, or, as seems more likely, emits a neutrino as it encounters the limit of it's exposure to the vacuum and passes through the 2 dimensional, EH vacuum that produces Hawking radiation.

It is this that is at the heart of the conclusion that the refraction model is incorrect. The effect of a photon encountering an atom's fields is the same as it suddenly reaching the limits of it's polarisation expression. When a photon becomes momentarily trapped by an atom's field it is exposed to the full force of the vacuum and collapses momentarily to an electron as information is exchanged between the photon and the atom that re-aligns the photon's polarisation.
.
.
.
.
.
****In some manners a photon does not leave the point of it's emission until it is reflected. In this manner a Hawking photon travels a path relative to it's wavelength before 'reflecting' off the vacuum, initiating it's spin oscillation and entering the universe as cosmic ray fallout. Somewhat akin to skipping a rock across a lake. Relative to a Hawking photon, a standard photon exchanges spin information with the vacuum it traverses to intersect with a baryon.****
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At this point I'm assuming that a description of BH singularity in instantonian would simply be one of it's geometric space knots. Where everything outside the EH is defined by photon polarisation, the singularity space is defined by neutrino polarisation. It is only the virtual space of the EH that is truly 2 dimensional. I'm not at all certain I could define the singularity space as 1 dimensional. The picture I get is that a neutrino is 'the time particle'. Singularity space is 4 dimensional. Our 3 dimensional space runs at 90 degrees to the timeline space.

In this manner it only requires a single Hawking radiation pairing within pure 2d space to define BB theory to the obvious conclusions we observe.

Conservation of momentum is defined by 4 dimensional space and centre of momenta. Conservation of energy is defined by 3 dimensional space and angular momenta. Both can be plotted through the finite subdivision rule.

*Statement Summary*

Let Out-Falling Hawking Photon = Vacuum Maximum Polarisation Expression (Omega) Black Body Radiation

Let c = Vacuum Mean / Hawking-Susskind Polarisation Termination

Let 'spin' = Degree of vacuum engagement

Let polarisation = Vacuum delay - Instanton moment

Let 'uncertainty' = Vacuum Delay Principal-(Conservation of Uncertainty Principal? nah :P)

END STATEMENT

Last edited by Instantonly; Sep 2nd 2016 at 07:11 AM.
Instantonly is offline  
Old Aug 31st 2016, 12:03 PM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
This is a rather lengthy post so I'm not going to address it all at once. The major points I have questions about are:
Originally Posted by Instantonly View Post
Proposal: The model of light reflection of an atom is incorrect in that an electron from the nucleon only provides the field that allows a captured photon to momentarily collapse to an electron without a nucleon specific electron being required to jump shells.
How can a (captured?) photon turn into an electron? This violates many principles, the simplest of which is charge conservation.

Originally Posted by Instantonly View Post
Empty space(as relevant to the conservation of momentum) that is void of substantial particle is 2 dimensional. The property of this 2d state is exponential collapse.
Where did you get that empty space is 2D? Speaking Classically empty space is 4D Lorentzian space-time. Quantum mechanically speaking there is no such thing as empty space. And at what point in time did we ever find out that particle states collapse "exponentially?" What does that even mean?

Originally Posted by Instantonly View Post
A photon providess the evacuation of spatial collapse.
I have no idea what this sentence means!

Originally Posted by Instantonly View Post
Conservation of momentum is defined by 4 dimensional space and centre of momenta. Conservation of energy is defined by 3 dimensional space and angular momenta. Both can be plotted through the finite subdivision rule.
Conservation of 4-momentum in SR is given by both energy conservation (the 0 component of the 4-momentum) and 3-momentum conservation (the 1, 2, 3 components.) Energy and momentum conservation can be violated so long as the overall 4-momentum is conserved. And what is the "finite subdivision rule?"

And finally, how does Hawking radiation have to do with this? I don't see any direct reference to it in here. Nor do I see any way that instantons come into this.

There are many other points that are confusing or flat out incorrect, but these are good enough to start with.

-Dan
Instantonly likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Aug 31st 2016 at 12:05 PM.
topsquark is offline  
Old Aug 31st 2016, 06:26 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
This is a rather lengthy post so I'm not going to

There are many other points that are confusing or flat out incorrect, but these are good enough to start with.

-Dan
I will address each of your points concisely once I have at least had a coffee. The initial observation I will clarify is that the 3 dimensional space we observe is maintained in that state by the photons passing through it. The photon evacuates the 2 dimensional state of exponential collapse that would be obvious were they not present.

While a photon is refracted through matter the energy it absorbs is dissipated as polarisation information. Should an IR photon travel far enough through a vacuum without encountering matter it will collapse as a high energy electron observed in nature as cosmic rays. If the photon begins within the visible spectrum it will collapse to an ionised proton. Around the X-Ray band it will collapse as a neutron(which obviously decays). Gamma will collapse to a graviton(similar to a neutron but with heavier quarks), which decays through neutron chains. Only Hawking radiation begins with the polarisation required to travel the distance required to collapse.

Space-time curvature becomes a matter of polarisation resolution I must assume.

Last edited by Instantonly; Sep 1st 2016 at 06:51 PM.
Instantonly is offline  
Old Aug 31st 2016, 07:29 PM   #4
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Instantonly View Post
I will address each of your points concisely once I have at least had a coffee. The initial observation I will clarify is that the 3 dimensional space we observe is maintained in that state by the photons passing through it. The photon evacuates the 2 dimensional state of exponential collapse that would be obvious were they not present.

While a photon is refracted through matter the energy it absorbs is dissipated as polarisation information. Should an IR photon travel far enough through a vacuum without encountering matter it will collapse as a high energy electron observed in nature as cosmic rays. If the photon begins within the visible spectrum it will collapse to an ionised proton. Above the visible spectrum it will collapse as a neutron(which obviously decays). An unimpeded Hawking photon will collapse to a graviton(similar to a neutron but with heavier quarks), which decays through neutron chains.
Photons are photons. Electrons are electrons. One cannot "collapse" to form the other. Such an interaction violates charge, spin, and lepton number conservation laws.

Cosmic rays contain a number of different particles: protons, the occasional anti-proton, muons, electrons, and various frequencies of gamma and x-rays are some of the possibilities. They are not just high energy electrons.

I'm afraid that I have to question if you have any idea of what you are talking about.

-Dan
Instantonly likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Aug 31st 2016, 08:36 PM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Photons are photons. Electrons are electrons. One cannot "collapse" to form the other. Such an interaction violates charge, spin, and lepton number conservation laws.

Cosmic rays contain a number of different particles: protons, the occasional anti-proton, muons, electrons, and various frequencies of gamma and x-rays are some of the possibilities. They are not just high energy electrons.
I would indicate FRB's as evidence of the decay of gravitons. All cosmic ray decay below that is differentiated by the particular amplitude of the initiating photon pairing. Your comment might be validated by providing that the collapsing photon might require intersection with a neutrino to facilitate the instanton shift. While a photon is reflecting off an atom a free neutrino is not required.

[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid that I have to question if you have any idea of what you are talking about.

-Dan[/QUOTE]

That is your prerogative but as I indicated, with fair time to address each of the points and principals you have indicated, I sincerely believe all uncertainty can be confined and the information paradox fully resolved. I could conversely indicate that if you do not comprehend instantons intimately, you can not understand the information I have assessed.

As it is Professor Susskind's insight that has resolved the exercise that has led inevitably to these conclusions, without having fully addressed each and every question you raise, at this point I personally could only accept Professor Susskind's immediate dismissal of this resolution, provided he supplied data that could not be resolved. I contend that all principals I have reviewed against this solution have thus far yielded to it's principal.

I am certain the current model of photon reflection off an atom violates all conservation principals. What becomes apparent is that it is more than likely that, due to their polarisation, only Hawking radiation photons can travel far enough unimpeded to collapse.

Last edited by Instantonly; Sep 1st 2016 at 12:04 AM.
Instantonly is offline  
Old Sep 1st 2016, 03:37 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3
The way you write is a bit difficult to decipher...

Could you maybe rephrase it in the style of Frank-n-furter?...
topsquark and Instantonly like this.
Zymocenosilicaphobia is offline  
Old Sep 1st 2016, 03:43 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Zymocenosilicaphobia View Post
The way you write is a bit difficult to decipher...

Could you maybe rephrase it in the style of Frank-n-furter?...
He HATES math!!!



If one is familiar with instantons it should be entirely comprehensible.
Instantonly is offline  
Old Sep 1st 2016, 03:59 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3
From reading what you have posted, you aren't very familiar with instantons yourself...

What is your understanding of them and how have you come to your conclusions that contain the term 'instanton' ?
topsquark and Instantonly like this.
Zymocenosilicaphobia is offline  
Old Sep 1st 2016, 04:22 AM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Zymocenosilicaphobia View Post
From reading what you have posted, you aren't very familiar with instantons yourself...

What is your understanding of them and how have you come to your conclusions that contain the term 'instanton' ?
I am not here to review every piece of information in my brain. If you have a question specific to the topic, question away. If you are familiar with the instantonian language you might include some reference. At this point I am only genuinely expecting that a few individuals such as Professor Susskind will have the capacity to enter into that particular discussion as only a handful of scholars I am aware of have paid the subject any attention since the first material on them was drafted mid-last century.
Instantonly is offline  
Old Sep 1st 2016, 04:31 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3
you are the one making the claims...

what is the formula supporting your claims about instantons?

I mean, you could use the one referring to a Yang–Mills gauge field, but how you've related it to hawking radiation defies the definition of all 3...

please show your working
topsquark and Instantonly like this.
Zymocenosilicaphobia is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Quantum Physics

Tags
er=epr, erepr, information, information paradox, paradox, photon reflection, solution



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conservation of information? What is it? kiwiheretic General Physics 0 Mar 29th 2016 02:01 PM
Do I have enough information to solve this? aflowernamedyou Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 4th 2012 01:56 AM
Useful information topic of multiple sources. Paul46 Advanced Waves and Sound 4 Oct 7th 2009 12:03 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed