Stefan Ram wrote:

> bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote or quoted:
>>Gravitons!
>>They are the basic to quantum entanglement.

> When a system is made up of multiple subsystems,
> it's considered "entangled" if you can't just write its state as
> a simple product of the states from those individual subsystems.
> This has no specific connection to gravitons.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how the state of one or all affects the state of each one. In the quantum domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian electrodynamics.

bt

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 04/04/24 17:37, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> His starting point is that the equations of General Relativity
>>> work equally well with time running forwards or backwards. So far,
>>> that's in agreement with mainstream thinking. But from this he
>>> creates a scenario where matter that falls into a black hole can
>>> get close to the singularity, in a region where General Relativity
>>> does not hold, and then be time-reversed and bounce back out as the
>>> product of a white hole.
>>
>>> [My immediate reaction: if a time-reversed object travels out of
>>> the hole, then those of us who live forward in time will see it as
>>> falling into the hole. But maybe I've missed his point.]
>>
>>> What is the reason such a bounce is possible? Well, Dante
>>> explained that. You can travel down to the innermost part of Hell,
>>> and there you will find ... not a singularity, but a way to exit
>>> from Hell. QED.
>>
>>> Have I missed seeing something important?
>>
>> Gravitons!
>>
>> They are the basic to quantum entanglement. In a quantum entangled
>> world, one can assume that gravitons fill the void called space, with
>> instantaneous communication from any point to the other. The ancient
>> "action at a distance" principle for gravity remains valid!!!!!

> Traditional action at a distance has a time delay. For example, if an
> electron suddenly came into existence, the resulting change in the
> electric field would propagate outwards at the speed of light. The
> concept of quantum entanglement is upsetting because it suggests that
> information can be communicated at greater than the speed of light.
> That, in turn, says that Special Relativity is wrong. Which brings a
> whole lot of theory tumbling down ... is Arindam reading this?

> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> paradox is avoided.

>> It is charming to bring in an ancient poet to a modern physics
>> discussion. What wonderful insights great poets have!

> Charming? From an artistic viewpoint, yes. But I reject the suggestion
> that Dante's opinions had any relationship to reality.

Action of a distance theory was proposed long before electrons were known, let alone their sudden appearance disturbing the law of conservation of mass.

The movement of stars indicate action of a distance, since a change of motion of one star instantaneously changes the motion of another, light years away - like an electrostatic field, the study of which led to action at a distance.
(Increase a potential here, thus enhance the electric field and measure the corresponding force there, happenign at the same time.)
Varying electric fields came later abd yes they do relate to the speed of light.
Following Einstein:
The spacetime geodesic is independent of electromagnetic fields, for the aether theory is no longer considered valid.
Gravitons, then, replace aetheric components for the transfer of forces, on the purely theoretical basis.
Who is Arindam?

bt

On 05/04/24 13:53, bertietaylor wrote:

> Who is Arindam?

Arindam proved that E=mc^2 is wrong, and he repeatedly told us about it.
Apparently he left this newsgroup after realising that he was in
everyone's killfile.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 05/04/24 13:53, bertietaylor wrote:

>> Who is Arindam?

> Arindam proved that E=mc^2 is wrong, and he repeatedly told us about it.
> Apparently he left this newsgroup after realising that he was in
> everyone's kill file.

Did he really? For someone in everyone's kill file he does seem to arouse feelings!

On 05/04/24 17:10, bertietaylor wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/24 13:53, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>>> Who is Arindam?
>
>> Arindam proved that E=mc^2 is wrong, and he repeatedly told us
>> about it. Apparently he left this newsgroup after realising that he
>> was in everyone's kill file.
>
> Did he really? For someone in everyone's kill file he does seem to
> arouse feelings!

Well, I exaggerated. Some people don't use killfiles, and now and then
we'd see someone's response to him. It happened often enough to let us
see the full extent of his delusions.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 04/04/2024 23:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 04/04/2024 15:16, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> I think Arindam gave up on this group long ago because he couldn't find
>>> anyone to accept his claptrap.
>>
>> I think he was forced to give up this group (an others) because he was
>> posting via GG. Like one other ex-poster, he could not figure out how to
>> post using a proper user agent.
>>
>>> He's recently become quite noticeable at
>>> sci.physics.relativity.
>>
>> Are you sure? How recently? Look at his latest post and let us know
>> what he is using as a user agent - if not GG?
>
> He is using NemoWeb, like many other Google escapees,
> Used to post to sci.physics, but that group has been taken over
> completely by Russian trolls, so he has moved to sci.physics.relativity.
> The content remains unchanged,
>

'Russian trolls'? Are these anything like Russian dolls? You peel away
one layer, and there is another one inside ?

On 05/04/2024 01:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>
> It's hard to argue with a Trump example.
>
> Not a direct response to your post, but I am starting to wonder if we
> need some Trumpian variant on Godwin's Law?
>

Are you comparing Trump's influence on people to that of Hitler's? I
hope you are not forced to issue a public apology to all neo-Nazis soon.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:59:55 +0200
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 05/04/2024 01:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
> >
> > It's hard to argue with a Trump example.
> >
> > Not a direct response to your post, but I am starting to wonder if we
> > need some Trumpian variant on Godwin's Law?
> >
>
> Are you comparing Trump's influence on people to that of Hitler's? I
> hope you are not forced to issue a public apology to all neo-Nazis soon.

Neo-nazis are people too, and we should encourage diversity.

(Have I gone too far?)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

How did Arindam prove e=mc^2 to be wrong even in his delusional way?
After all people had doubts about the theories of relativity until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

bt

On 05/04/24 21:10, bertietaylor wrote:

> How did Arindam prove e=mc^2 to be wrong even in his delusional way?
> After all people had doubts about the theories of relativity until
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've forgotten the details, but I think his starting point was something
like
E=1/2 mv^2
From this he developed a theory that allowed free energy to be generated
from nowhere, i.e. while dismissing Einstein he also dismissed conservation
of mass/energy as a side-effect. He never did produce a perpetual motion
machine, although he did refer to YouTube videos showing other people's
perpetual motion machines in operation.

His main practical demonstration, as far as I know, is a rail-gun device
that is supposed to show that momentum is not conserved. Thus, whether
he knows it or not, he's really attacking Newton rather than Einstein.

We are still waiting for the announcement of his formation of an energy
generation company.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 04/04/2024 23:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/04/2024 15:16, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think Arindam gave up on this group long ago because he couldn't find
> >>> anyone to accept his claptrap.
> >>
> >> I think he was forced to give up this group (an others) because he was
> >> posting via GG. Like one other ex-poster, he could not figure out how to
> >> post using a proper user agent.
> >>
> >>> He's recently become quite noticeable at
> >>> sci.physics.relativity.
> >>
> >> Are you sure? How recently? Look at his latest post and let us know
> >> what he is using as a user agent - if not GG?
> >
> > He is using NemoWeb, like many other Google escapees,
> > Used to post to sci.physics, but that group has been taken over
> > completely by Russian trolls, so he has moved to sci.physics.relativity.
> > The content remains unchanged,
> >
>
>
> 'Russian trolls'? Are these anything like Russian dolls? You peel away
> one layer, and there is another one inside ?

Quite the opposite. They never post more than once,
and have a new name with each new posting.

Jan

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/04/24 08:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > White holes are basically unphysical, in the sense that they destroy
> > all causality. There interior is inaccessible in principle, so we
> > cannot know what will come out and why. Elvis could come out driving
> > a pink Cadillac, for all we know,
>
> This whole discussion reminds me of a question that I've never found the
> answer to. Hawking radiation causes a black hole gradually to lose
> mass/energy. After a very long time, is it possible for a black hole to
> lose so much mass that it can no longer support an event horizon and a
> singularity, putting it back into the "normal" universe? Somebody here
> probably knows the answer.
>
> I guess the answer depends on the interplay of mass, event horizon
> radius (as seen by an outside observer), and energy loss.

It disappears with a bang, and in a finite amount of time.
No mass-energy remains, so there is nothing to support.

Or if you want it more pictorally,
the radius of the event horizon shrinks to zero,
And there is an expanding sperical shell of chirped photons
around where it was,

Jan

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > On 05/04/24 08:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >> White holes are basically unphysical, in the sense that they destroy
> >> all causality. There interior is inaccessible in principle, so we
> >> cannot know what will come out and why. Elvis could come out driving
> >> a pink Cadillac, for all we know,
>
> > This whole discussion reminds me of a question that I've never found the
> > answer to. Hawking radiation causes a black hole gradually to lose
> > mass/energy. After a very long time, is it possible for a black hole to
> > lose so much mass that it can no longer support an event horizon and a
> > singularity, putting it back into the "normal" universe? Somebody here
> > probably knows the answer.
>
> > I guess the answer depends on the interplay of mass, event horizon
> > radius (as seen by an outside observer), and energy loss.
>
> Hawking radiation is not firmly established on theoretical grounds.
> If it exists, the temperature of the black hole increases with decreasing
> radius, so the rate of energy loss is initially very slow but gets faster
> until the whole tiny thing disappears with a bang. People have looked
> for those gamma-ray bangs, conceivably produced by microscopic
> black holes conceivably produced in the early universe, but haven't
> found any.

OTOH Hawking radiation is also supported
on the firmest of theoretical grounds, thermodynamics.
If a black hole didn't have a non-zero temperature
it would violate second law.
This is conceivable, but undesirable,

Jan

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/24 17:37, bertietaylor wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >>> His starting point is that the equations of General Relativity
> >>> work equally well with time running forwards or backwards. So far,
> >>> that's in agreement with mainstream thinking. But from this he
> >>> creates a scenario where matter that falls into a black hole can
> >>> get close to the singularity, in a region where General Relativity
> >>> does not hold, and then be time-reversed and bounce back out as the
> >>> product of a white hole.
> >>
> >>> [My immediate reaction: if a time-reversed object travels out of
> >>> the hole, then those of us who live forward in time will see it as
> >>> falling into the hole. But maybe I've missed his point.]
> >>
> >>> What is the reason such a bounce is possible? Well, Dante
> >>> explained that. You can travel down to the innermost part of Hell,
> >>> and there you will find ... not a singularity, but a way to exit
> >>> from Hell. QED.
> >>
> >>> Have I missed seeing something important?
> >>
> >> Gravitons!
> >>
> >> They are the basic to quantum entanglement. In a quantum entangled
> >> world, one can assume that gravitons fill the void called space, with
> >> instantaneous communication from any point to the other. The ancient
> >> "action at a distance" principle for gravity remains valid!!!!!
>
> > Traditional action at a distance has a time delay. For example, if an
> > electron suddenly came into existence, the resulting change in the
> > electric field would propagate outwards at the speed of light. The
> > concept of quantum entanglement is upsetting because it suggests that
> > information can be communicated at greater than the speed of light.
>
> That's one way to approach it, but not popular among physicists at all,
> I believe.

Why not? That's just what is predcted, and seen to happen.
If you create an electron-positron pair for example
the resulting electromagnetic dipole fields wil propagate away at c.

> > That, in turn, says that Special Relativity is wrong. Which brings a
> > whole lot of theory tumbling down ... is Arindam reading this?
>
> There are no problems with SR, as I understand it. If any information
> is being communicated faster than c, you can't use it to send
> messages.

Eh, you may want to rethink this, at least the formulation.

> > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> > paradox is avoided.
>
> >> It is charming to bring in an ancient poet to a modern physics
> >> discussion. What wonderful insights great poets have!
>
> > Charming? From an artistic viewpoint, yes. But I reject the suggestion
> > that Dante's opinions had any relationship to reality.
>
> Well, I have sometimes suggested to my students that the gravitational
> attraction between two bodies is l'amor che move il sol e' l'altre stelle.

Se non è vero è bene trovato,

Jan

On 05/04/24 21:47, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> This whole discussion reminds me of a question that I've never found the
>> answer to. Hawking radiation causes a black hole gradually to lose
>> mass/energy. After a very long time, is it possible for a black hole to
>> lose so much mass that it can no longer support an event horizon and a
>> singularity, putting it back into the "normal" universe? Somebody here
>> probably knows the answer.
>>
>> I guess the answer depends on the interplay of mass, event horizon
>> radius (as seen by an outside observer), and energy loss.
>
> It disappears with a bang, and in a finite amount of time.
> No mass-energy remains, so there is nothing to support.

Thanks to both you and Jerry. I'm a little disappointed that it doesn't
end with a whimper, but we can't have everything. The fact that it
happens when the event horizon radius shrinks to zero answers my
question completely.

> Or if you want it more pictorally,
> the radius of the event horizon shrinks to zero,
> And there is an expanding sperical shell of chirped photons
> around where it was,

I presume that those who believe that a black hole can contain
information have a different explanation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 05/04/24 21:10, bertietaylor wrote:

>> How did Arindam prove e=mc^2 to be wrong even in his delusional way?
>> After all people had doubts about the theories of relativity until
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> I've forgotten the details, but I think his starting point was something
> like
> E=1/2 mv^2
> From this he developed a theory that allowed free energy to be generated
> from nowhere, i.e. while dismissing Einstein he also dismissed conservation
> of mass/energy as a side-effect. He never did produce a perpetual motion
> machine, although he did refer to YouTube videos showing other people's
> perpetual motion machines in operation.

> His main practical demonstration, as far as I know, is a rail-gun device
> that is supposed to show that momentum is not conserved. Thus, whether
> he knows it or not, he's really attacking Newton rather than Einstein.

> We are still waiting for the announcement of his formation of an energy
> generation company.

Who knows what the future may bring! I did a search of Arindam in Internet and came across many people named Arindam. There was one called a fraud and shame of IIT... maybe that is the person who seems so upsetting?

bt

On 05/04/24 21:47, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2024 23:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>> He is using NemoWeb, like many other Google escapees,
>>> Used to post to sci.physics, but that group has been taken over
>>> completely by Russian trolls, so he has moved to sci.physics.relativity.
>>> The content remains unchanged,

>> 'Russian trolls'? Are these anything like Russian dolls? You peel away
>> one layer, and there is another one inside ?
>
> Quite the opposite. They never post more than once,
> and have a new name with each new posting.

That suggests to me a single troll who keeps changing his name.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 05/04/24 22:45, bertietaylor wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/24 21:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>>> How did Arindam prove e=mc^2 to be wrong even in his delusional
>>> way? After all people had doubts about the theories of relativity
>>> until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
>> I've forgotten the details, but I think his starting point was
>> something like E=1/2 mv^2 From this he developed a theory that
>> allowed free energy to be generated from nowhere, i.e. while
>> dismissing Einstein he also dismissed conservation of mass/energy
>> as a side-effect. He never did produce a perpetual motion machine,
>> although he did refer to YouTube videos showing other people's
>> perpetual motion machines in operation.
>
>> His main practical demonstration, as far as I know, is a rail-gun
>> device that is supposed to show that momentum is not conserved.
>> Thus, whether he knows it or not, he's really attacking Newton
>> rather than Einstein.
>
>> We are still waiting for the announcement of his formation of an
>> energy generation company.
>
> Who knows what the future may bring! I did a search of Arindam in
> Internet and came across many people named Arindam. There was one
> called a fraud and shame of IIT... maybe that is the person who seems
> so upsetting?

A search for "Arindam alt.usage.english" turns up Arindam Bannerjee. (I
had forgotten his other name.) I see, though, that there are many people
with that name.

By the way, I don't think of him as upsetting. For a while there I
refrained from plonking him because of his comedy value.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> paradox is avoided.

Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
quad) of entangled photons (say).

I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.

On 05/04/2024 01:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/04/24 02:04, occam wrote:
>> On 04/04/2024 08:37, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
<snip>

>>>
>>> Gravitons!
>>
>> Gravitons are what account for gravitational forces in our current
>> model. If a 'white hole' existed which was spewing out matter, then
>> it would do so with anti-gravitons. How else would matter be ejected
>> if not by some anti-gravity force?
>
> One thing that occurred to me while reading the book was that for white
> holes to exist gravity must come in two flavours, one attractive and one
> repulsive.

Yes, the dream of all SF fans known as anti-gravity.

> After all, if electric charge can be either positive or
> negative ... . Perhaps negative gravity was responsible for the
> inflationary phase of the early universe.

Perhaps it still is? This would explain why the universe is still
expanding at the enormous rate it is?

ASIDE

My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.

>
> Still, a crucial step in Rovelli's reasoning is the invocation of time
> reversal. And, in reverse time, ordinary gravity is indeed repulsive.
>

I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj.
And yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
That was interesting!
I take it that Arindam may have some background in electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on relativity theories.

bt

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:

>On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>> paradox is avoided.
>
>Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
>quad) of entangled photons (say).
>
>I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
>they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
>computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
>sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.

Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.

SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
"Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."

Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
15 seconds.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertietaylor) wrote:

>I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj.
>And yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
>That was interesting!
>I take it that Arindam may have some background in electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on relativity theories.
>

IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and
refused to grant him a Ph.D.

He was probably specific about what was in the thesis,
but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites by
people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing
by eyeball.

--
Rich Ulrich

occam wrote:

> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
> stopping it happening again?

The fact that the universe is expanding?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 12:20:32 -0400
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>
> >On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> >> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> >> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> >> paradox is avoided.
> >
> >Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> >quad) of entangled photons (say).
> >
> >I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
> >they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
> >computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
> >sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.
>
> Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
> impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.
>
> SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
> "Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."
>
> Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
> 15 seconds.
>
Well, that's getting better; in AD200x I had a (looks it up:Asus EEE PC
901) laptop (with 4G? SSD) that could boot to a cutdown linux+firefox
(xpud) in 10s.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.