Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050814164431.htm

My argument is:

Ofcourse the state of timelessness comes before or at the same time as total virtual particle quantum entanglement transmission, thus there would still be a trace in 'Alice', no matter how small.

*Last edited by LQ (2010-12-26 15:21:44)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Hi LQ;

Hope you had a good holiday! What would happen if you and I went into the black hole?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

Thank you bobbym, It was the best! I got many presents, merry cristmass bobbym and soon happy new year!

Basically I believe:

1. The black hole is some kind of substance that when confronted with matter, timelessly converts it into it's own kind of matter. Other then that I believe that in a quantum entanglement, that sorta matter can dissapear from the black hole.

2. Any entanglement that leaves the black hole has still a spin with speed, however in the black hole, its time and length is still zero. A small shard of the black holes baneless matter left it with the entanglement. In some way, the entanglement energy is released outside the black hole, whether the entanglement can go away if one particle is in the black hole is a hard question to answer. basically, as long as time and length is nothing, the speed can be anything, thus the energy is released as soon as the entanglement has re-entangled.

3. I would need your help once again bobbym, I need you to calculate the odds of an entanglement to reach us from any known black hole, sizeably big. I am certain that there is one here, and I have a hard time believing that it's all that far away.

*Last edited by LQ (2010-12-27 23:19:23)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Hi LQ;

Glad you had a good Christmas, presents always cheer me up.

For that probability I have no idea. I have no numbers to look at.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

Quite alot of photons in space though. I bet a quantum entanglement can get pretty far... In the speed of light.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Spooky action at a distance as Einstein called it and all that quantum jumping made Einstein a detractor of quantum mechanics.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

I reccon it has a high truthvalue though. The question is only: how do we explain it with logic?

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Logically I would imagine.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

I would explain it with some sorta entropy photon (I've heard of it). Allthough... perhaps if a photon is a pulse wave, maybe an entropy photon could be explained as more of a longitudal wave? Like a distortion in time space?

*Last edited by LQ (2010-12-27 23:54:33)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Let us get back to the black hole. You think there is one near, where?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

Easy to say, if we just had some figures... Imagine that the nearest star except the sun shines with a light that is proportional with 1/r^2 and solar emition, yet only x% of that reaches us. It is safe to say that over the black holes lifetime, an object y times further away has emitted solar energy with the small change of also passing a black hole while the twin escapes. let's say 30% escapes, but we don't see any black holes near suns nearby, so let's guess that the black hole is at a big radius from the star in question. A lonely black hole in space. and the energy in free space around a black hole is 3-4 kelvin perhaps? Doesn't sound far, yet I wouldn't know, quite.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

basically one only need to know the average distance a quantumentanglement moves and the procentage that moves that far. I guess.

Then some sorta probability calcule.

Probably, one can measure the change in star light intensity over time and come up with the calcule. Allthough I am less skilled in this.

Let's figure out how far away it is on a sidenote though.

1. It could've been the supernova we saw 1987. (high distribution of light etc.)

That does sound sensible, allthough probably very far away, leaving no dangers too us.

*Last edited by LQ (2010-12-28 01:17:52)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

The one in the large Magellanic cloud? That one was about 180 000 light years away.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

Yeah. Can an entanglement or the shard itself move that far to begin with?

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 105,719

Hi LQ;

I think you are getting a little confused by the phraseology. A quantum entanglement is not an object. Nothing restricts it as far distance or time is concerned as far as I know. At the quantum level, relativity and classical mechanics do not hold. Down there, time and space have no meaning.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.****No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. **

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,285

But surely the quantum entanglement that also has an entropy, couldn't possibly deliver that entropy any longer then the photon that carries the quantum entanglement, and how far could that photon even come?

*Last edited by LQ (2010-12-29 17:17:07)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**philipsteele****Member**- Registered: 2011-06-16
- Posts: 10

entanglement is an observer-dependent quantity in non-inertial frames...

Offline