Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#41

Post by motohagiography »

vlovich123 wrote: post #39
motohagiography wrote: post #38

naively, i'd wonder if the time properties of black holes could be used to effect local super-massive gravitational effects on entangled particles here. e.g. they figured out how to entangle the electron and proton of a hydrogen atom with a complementary particle that is being pulled into a black hole, like if there were a way to entangle or entrain a local atom with hawking radiation from a black hole, where as the…

I don’t believe you can entangle items remotely like that.

photons entangle at a distance as there is tech in the market right now in cryptography that uses entangled photons over distances of several miles into orbit.

the naive intuition is that lensing hawking radiation might stabilize unstable elements for longer periods.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#42

Post by transfire »

Well that’s very interesting because one of the latest ideas getting traction on solving the information paradox is exactly this — that black holes are connected to each other and the outside space by wormholes.

Check out the current Scientific American special publication.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#43

Post by niederman »

motohagiography wrote: post #38

naively, i'd wonder if the time properties of black holes could be used to effect local super-massive gravitational effects on entangled particles here. e.g. they figured out how to entangle the electron and proton of a hydrogen atom with a complementary particle that is being pulled into a black hole, like if there were a way to entangle or entrain a local atom with hawking radiation from a black hole, where as the…

While something like this could be an interesting idea for a sci-fi novel, this is not at all how quantum entanglement works. Entanglement doesn't make one particle "[adopt] the dilated time/gravity of its remote counterpart", it just refers to a perfect correlation of certain measurements of the two particles. For example, if you produce two particles that you know have zero total momentum, but don't measure the momenta of either individual particle, these particles are now entangled, because measuring the momentum of one particle to be p immediately tells you that the other particle's momentum is -p, regardless of distance. Time does not actually come into play at all here.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#44

Post by ls-lah_33 »

I'm surprised Sabine doesn't mention the way fermions are treated in Loop Quantum Gravity [1][2]. My understanding is they are treated as "non-local" or open loops of gravitational force, and thus entry and exit points in space-time. This makes them conceptually similar to the "wormhole model" of matter that Einstein and Rosen originally described.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9404010

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.4719

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#45

Post by portn0y »

raattgift wrote: post #15
dr_dshiv wrote: post #3

An alternative to the “ball on rubber sheet” model of gravity is “twisting a lump out of a sheet of silly putty.” You get the same curvature without relying on gravity to serve as a model of gravity (which always bothered me a bit) For clarity, here’s what I mean: if you flatten out some silly putty (or pizza dough should work) then pinch and twist together some of the sheet into a lump, that pulls along the surround…

The "balls on a rubber sheet" is a pain because nothing is in free-fall: there are dissipative contact forces between the balls and the rubber sheet. Consequently realistic initial [position, velocity] values for the test ball cannot give you a stable circular orbit around the central mass ball. Venus isn't about to fall into the sun. Now try setting up Earth-Moon or the Jovian-Gallilean systems on the rubber sheet.…

Don’t call it “balls on a rubber sheet” then.

Describe it as an artistic representation of the theorized behavior.

Pull a Maxwell, whose theory of electromagnetism only worked when he got rid of the imaginary levers; get rid of descriptions in terms of physical things.

As a visual it’s fine. The debate here is the language. Only one aspect needs to change.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#46

Post by trhway »

so, Higgs gives mass, and the mass curves the space to produce what the see as gravitation. I think there are some questions here to the Higgs at it seems it has some special relation to the spacetime.

And that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

"...the angular momentum and charge of the electron are too large for a black hole of the electron's mass: a Kerr–Newman object with such a large angular momentum and charge would instead be "super-extremal", displaying a naked singularity, meaning a singularity not shielded by an event horizon."

And 2 singularities having worm-hole connection is the entanglement.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#47

Post by vlovich123 »

motohagiography wrote: post #41
vlovich123 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe you can entangle items remotely like that.

photons entangle at a distance as there is tech in the market right now in cryptography that uses entangled photons over distances of several miles into orbit. the naive intuition is that lensing hawking radiation might stabilize unstable elements for longer periods.

Huh. I thought you had to entangle them locally & then separate them maintaining entanglement. Entangling at a distance is weird. Can you provide a source of entangling particles remotely on Earth & in orbit?

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#48

Post by jayd16 »

smusamashah wrote: post #16
dr_dshiv wrote: post #3

An alternative to the “ball on rubber sheet” model of gravity is “twisting a lump out of a sheet of silly putty.” You get the same curvature without relying on gravity to serve as a model of gravity (which always bothered me a bit) For clarity, here’s what I mean: if you flatten out some silly putty (or pizza dough should work) then pinch and twist together some of the sheet into a lump, that pulls along the surround…

Balls on sheet is a wrong model imo. It needs gravity to work and therefore doesn't explain gravity. I like to imagine a sponge. If you could somehow make dense lumps inside the sponge (may be apply heat in its center somewhere using microwaves?) everything around that lump will be feel a tension/attraction towards that lump. That's my mental model.

It just needs force, no? You could use magnetism or even intertia if you accelerated the system, right?

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#49

Post by greysphere »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #37
greysphere wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just plug numbers into Coulomb's Law for this case, because Coulomb's Law by itself is not relativistically correct. Sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but as someone trying to study this at the moment, I don't see this the same way and I'd like to validate my interpretation: You can just plug numbers into Coulomb's law, that part is correct. But then the problem of infinite velocities comes from interpreti…

You can plug arbitrary values in, but you can not expect to gain any valid predictions or reasonable physical insight from Coulomb's law as soon as you are no longer dealing with static point charges. That's because B and E are not independent quantities but actually closely intertwined components of the electromagnetic field strength Tensor F. As soon as you start dealing with motion, these components will mix, pres…

In a classical view of 2 particles accelerating towards each other v x r will always be 0 so B will always be 0 even if the particles are accelerating towards each other. I believe all this holds under QFT [1].

Looking further a redefinition E is necessary when including the \beta factor [2]. So that was a mistake on my part - relativity does change the rhs of Coulomb's law.

Admittedly the problem as stated (two particles falling towards each other) constrains things in such a way that there is no off-axis contribution. Or to put it another way, 1d electromagnetism doesn't have magnetism.

[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law#In_relativity

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#50

Post by pantulis »

yyyk wrote: post #12

It's too commonly argued Einstein didn't produce anything after GR. This article is a welcome correction. The same collaboration produced the EPR paradox - a real achievement which taught us a great deal about quantum theory.

For all the glory Einstein deserves as one of the greatest minds I find more interesting the history of this supposed "failure" in later life, but it's even more admirable his tenacity at trying to tackle the problem at different angles for decades. And boy it must be a hard problem if Einstein himself could not crack it!
Post reply on HN