February 27, 2017

Entanglement of past, present, and future?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 6:04 pm

Utilizing wide-angle perception I.e. entanglement, might the above 3 be more inextricably intertwined than thought?

That is, in addition to our brief moment on the stage of life, might we also be part of a very large set; perhaps even divergent?

If the latter is also so, then might one have reoccurance of the same, and also variants, life experience (genetic and cultural)? This would be consistent with the concept of MRT, Modified Replication Time (1).

For a divergent set, might one transform a temporal series of such life experiences into a spatial ensemble, inclusive of endless repetition of the same life experience, as well as endless variations?

Hence are we limiting our perception in considering just 1 element i.e.self, of perhaps a divergent set? Are we both finite, and also concurrently, infinitesimal? A play that never ends?

… hold infinity in the palm of one’s hand
W. Blake

1. see MRT in SRM Spiral Rotation Model, and on zankaon web page.

October 29, 2015

Prefabricated ‘universe’ – Is clustering typical? Entanglement and the violation of the conservation of energy

Clustering of galaxies (sparce sampling tracing clustering of dark matter?) has been detected to approximately 400-600 Myrs after Big Bang, near reionization stage i.e. after dark age, wherein latter commenced after recombination at ~370,000 yrs post Big Bang. But there isn’t enough time for gravitation to account for such observed clustering, nor for galaxy formation, nor for any supermassive galactic black holes, if the latter exist. But what else could account for such findings? Contination?

Assuming a model of eventual re-contraction i.e. Big Crunch, then before such final demise of our ‘universe’, would such clustering and galaxies in principle seem no longer discernible? That is, for a very old ‘universe’ might essentially all baryonic matter become non-luminous? Yet following distribution of dark matter. Then in such model, for next successive ‘universe’ , would such clustering and galaxies’ luminous reappearance at ~ 400-600 Myrs, give an overall prefabricated appearance to early universe’s overall pattern and structure of dark and luminous matter? But differing examples, such as massive stars and supernovae, indicative of differences between BB and BC. Further differences – sufficient time for dwarf galaxie and globular cluster formation?

Thus by broadening one’s perspective, does the overall System take on a certain global pattern appearance? For eample, fermion mass spectrum, with neutrinos no longer descriptivne for unfolding universe. Such violation of conservation of energy, implies a non-local modified global explanation. Thus entanglement of past overall Big Contraction pattern, with the subsequent Big Expansion stage, revealed?

So in entanglement sense, might more typical clustering of galaxies for Big Crunch, be perceived as a continuation description of overall reappearance in early universe of subsequent Big Expansion? Similar to cosmic neutrinos entanglement description (and subsequent disappearance) for early universe; and their reappearance for Big Crunch?

Hence seeming to reveal continuation of a global pattern for the System? Might such entanglement with past ‘universe’ explain ‘origin’ (i.e. continuation) of mass, angular momentum, clustering, and overall galaxy presentation, in subsequent early ‘universe’ ? In other words, are they built into the System? Hence consistent with the scenario of no choice in regards to overall pattern, as the curtain rises at the end of the Dark Age?  TMM

Also see MSM page, and entanglement on modified black hole page of zankaon

October 1, 2014

Vortical Black Hole Thermodynamics. Origin and mechanism of short duration gamma ray bursts (GRB)?

Thermodynamics: heat (energy) flows from hot to cold i.e. from higher energy density to lower. For BH engine, is there only one way out for energy – via polar vortex; or also re-distribution circulation into any lower energy density regions of interior of BH? Would either avenue appear thermodynamically (entropic) favorable?

Might one have egress from vortical wall energy density surface, or from BH interior, or just from infalling mass? For galactic BH, perhaps not much ongoing infalling mass; yet continuous beaming? Would rebound off vortical wall energy density surface seem less likely? Would an energy source other than just infalling mass seem reasonable?

Does any narrow collimation of beam suggest a very deep origin? For deep in cusp, might one even have gravity wave generation (see below), and in absence of dust, perhaps B-mode polarization, in a simulation? Also if jets originate from within BH, would this seem consistent with no horizon; hence also consistent with acoustic/optical BH simulation (adapted to polar vortex model) effectively not having a horizon; hence facilitating mass outflow for BH?


April 7, 2013

Geodesic ‘reconnect’ within polar vortex of modified black hole?

Might one consider an analogy to magnetic reconnect; that is, geodesicreconnect’; would this torsion i.e. sufficient twisting of manifoldWould this be non-relativistic, and hence not part of GRT?

In contrast, in an entanglement sense (broader perspective), one would have instantaneous shifting of geodesic of test particle to a new location in polar vortex. How might one test for such considered geodesic ‘reconnect’ ? The vertical component of motion for test particle to new location, would result in redshift, for climbing out of gravitational well; whereas movement to deeper in well, would give blueshifting i.e. energy gain, with resultant increased frequency for radiation; thus perhaps jumping back and forth of emission lines? Such considered geodesic ‘reconnect’ scenario would have to occur at higher energies deeper in gravitational well of polar vortex. Hence one would expect more pronounced shifting of uv emission lines, than for just at gravitational radius. Such movement (jumping or sliding?) of emission lines, might be considered associated with turbulence, and thus intermittent viewing; however this might seem to be for penetrating uv ~ same for at gravitational radius, or for deeper in potential gravitational field of polar vortex. Energy scale sufficient to give such twisting of geodesics, might also seem sufficient to generate gravity waves, which in addition to twisting description, might also have ‘reconnected’ instantaneous shifting of patch of gravity waves to another location, such as cone of polar vortex of modified BH, such as for short duration GRB. Such gravity wavereconnection’ would not be relativistic nor part of GRT.

Would considered coalescing black holes have sufficient energy for such twisting of geodesics, and geodesic ‘reconnection’, as for particles and gravity waves? Thus would particle geodesic ‘reconnect’ model suggest what might occur with gravity waves? Might polar vortex also serve as a convenient model and workshop for what might occur at Planck scale?

In contrast, might one just have magnetic reconnect accounting for suggested uv emission line jumping, sliding, or shimmering? That is, path (rendered as magnetic field line) of a charged particle, in magnetic field, at any depth in polar vortex? Would intensity of magnetic field be proportional to circumference of plasma current, for example our sun’s vs Jupiter’s magnetic field? Then might smaller volume galactic BH be consistent with more intense magnetic field? Might one also have magnetic reconnect across event horizon anywhere, for black hole? That is, for a charged particle following magnetic field line (non-geodesic) for inside horizon, might it suddenly jump non-relativistically to outside BH event horizon? Another way for quanta and energy to escape from interior of black hole; also consistent with thermodynamics?

see for update on entanglement, and the scenario of colliding (merging) beams, with instantaneous displacement of energy from interior of BH to cone of polar vortex. TMM

magnetic reconnect.

Blog at