Author Topic: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?  (Read 31291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.730
Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« on: 18-09-2013, 23:08:57 »
Quote
It could be time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye. Cosmologists have speculated that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole — a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.
[/size]The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.[/color][/size]“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.[/color]

[/size]It is also difficult to explain how a violent Big Bang would have left behind a Universe that has an almost completely uniform temperature, because there does not seem to have been enough time since the birth of the cosmos for it to have reached temperature equilibrium.[/color]
[/size]To most cosmologists, the most plausible explanation for that uniformity is that, soon after the beginning of time, some unknown form of energy made the young Universe inflate at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. That way, a small patch with roughly uniform temperature would have stretched into the vast cosmos we see today. But Afshordi notes that “the Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on”.[/color][/size]On the braneIn a paper posted last week on the arXiv preprint server[/color]1, Afshordi and his colleagues turn their attention to a proposal[/color]2 made in 2000 by a team including Gia Dvali, a physicist now at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany. In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a ‘bulk universe’ that has four spatial dimensions.[/color]Ashfordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole.In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi’s team modelled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand.The authors postulate that the 3D Universe we live in might be just such a brane — and that we detect the brane’s growth as cosmic expansion. “Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,” says Afshordi.Model discrepancyThe model also naturally explains our Universe’s uniformity. Because the 4D bulk universe could have existed for an infinitely long time in the past, there would have been ample opportunity for different parts of the 4D bulk to reach an equilibrium, which our 3D Universe would have inherited.The picture has some problems, however. Earlier this year, the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory released data that mapped the slight temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — the relic radiation that carries imprints of the Universe’s early moments. The observed patterns matched predictions made by the standard Big Bang model and inflation, but the black-hole model deviates from Planck's observations by about 4%. Hoping to resolve the discrepancy, Afshordi says that his is now refining its model.Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model. “The singularity is the most fundamental problem in cosmology and they have rewritten history so that we never encountered it,” he says. Whereas the Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says.[/font][/size]



http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #1 on: 19-09-2013, 09:55:34 »
Heh. Ja nisam hteo da otvaram novi topik sa ovom temom pa sam vest zalepio ovde, ali dobro, lepo je i ovako.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.730
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #2 on: 19-09-2013, 10:14:21 »
izvinjavam se na dabl postu, ja još kao gledao da li ima negde pa nisam našao...
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #3 on: 19-09-2013, 10:17:06 »
Ma opušteno, verovatno je i bolje da ovakva priča ima svoj topik.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #4 on: 19-09-2013, 18:58:34 »

Poneku reč razumem... Universe, black hole...
Mislim da me je vreme pregazilo...  :cry:



Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #5 on: 20-09-2013, 08:56:22 »
A čekaj dok pročitaš ovo:
 A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

 
Quote

Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.
 
“This is completely new and very much simpler than anything that has been done before,” said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.
 
The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression.
 
“The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling,” said Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University and one of the researchers who developed the new idea. “You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before.”
 
The new geometric version of quantum field theory could also facilitate the search for a theory of quantum gravity that would seamlessly connect the large- and small-scale pictures of the universe. Attempts thus far to incorporate gravity into the laws of physics at the quantum scale have run up against nonsensical infinities and deep paradoxes. The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity.
 
“Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.”
 
Locality is the notion that particles can interact only from adjoining positions in space and time. And unitarity holds that the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical interaction must add up to one. The concepts are the central pillars of quantum field theory in its original form, but in certain situations involving gravity, both break down, suggesting neither is a fundamental aspect of nature.
 
In keeping with this idea, the new geometric approach to particle interactions removes locality and unitarity from its starting assumptions. The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry. The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct.
 
“It’s a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way,” said David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University.
 
The amplituhedron itself does not describe gravity. But Arkani-Hamed and his collaborators think there might be a related geometric object that does. Its properties would make it clear why particles appear to exist, and why they appear to move in three dimensions of space and to change over time.
 
Because “we know that ultimately, we need to find a theory that doesn’t have” unitarity and locality, Bourjaily said, “it’s a starting point to ultimately describing a quantum theory of gravity.”
 
Clunky Machinery
 
The amplituhedron looks like an intricate, multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions. Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated, “scattering amplitudes,” which represent the likelihood that a certain set of particles will turn into certain other particles upon colliding. These numbers are what particle physicists calculate and test to high precision at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.
The 60-year-old method for calculating scattering amplitudes — a major innovation at the time — was pioneered by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. He sketched line drawings of all the ways a scattering process could occur and then summed the likelihoods of the different drawings. The simplest Feynman diagrams look like trees: The particles involved in a collision come together like roots, and the particles that result shoot out like branches. More complicated diagrams have loops, where colliding particles turn into unobservable “virtual particles” that interact with each other before branching out as real final products. There are diagrams with one loop, two loops, three loops and so on — increasingly baroque iterations of the scattering process that contribute progressively less to its total amplitude. Virtual particles are never observed in nature, but they were considered mathematically necessary for unitarity — the requirement that probabilities sum to one.
 
“The number of Feynman diagrams is so explosively large that even computations of really simple processes weren’t done until the age of computers,” Bourjaily said. A seemingly simple event, such as two subatomic particles called gluons colliding to produce four less energetic gluons (which happens billions of times a second during collisions at the Large Hadron Collider), involves 220 diagrams, which collectively contribute thousands of terms to the calculation of the scattering amplitude.
 
In 1986, it became apparent that Feynman’s apparatus was a Rube Goldberg machine.
 
To prepare for the construction of the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas (a project that was later canceled), theorists wanted to calculate the scattering amplitudes of known particle interactions to establish a background against which interesting or exotic signals would stand out. But even 2-gluon to 4-gluon processes were so complex, a group of physicists had written two years earlier, “that they may not be evaluated in the foreseeable future.”
 
Stephen Parke and Tommy Taylor, theorists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, took that statement as a challenge. Using a few mathematical tricks, they managed to simplify the 2-gluon to 4-gluon amplitude calculation from several billion terms to a 9-page-long formula, which a 1980s supercomputer could handle. Then, based on a pattern they observed in the scattering amplitudes of other gluon interactions, Parke and Taylor guessed a simple one-term expression for the amplitude. It was, the computer verified, equivalent to the 9-page formula. In other words, the traditional machinery of quantum field theory, involving hundreds of Feynman diagrams worth thousands of mathematical terms, was obfuscating something much simpler. As Bourjaily put it: “Why are you summing up millions of things when the answer is just one function?”
 
“We knew at the time that we had an important result,” Parke said. “We knew it instantly. But what to do with it?”
 
The Amplituhedron
 
The message of Parke and Taylor’s single-term result took decades to interpret. “That one-term, beautiful little function was like a beacon for the next 30 years,” Bourjaily said. It “really started this revolution.”
In the mid-2000s, more patterns emerged in the scattering amplitudes of particle interactions, repeatedly hinting at an underlying, coherent mathematical structure behind quantum field theory. Most important was a set of formulas called the BCFW recursion relations, named for Ruth Britto, Freddy Cachazo, Bo Feng and Edward Witten. Instead of describing scattering processes in terms of familiar variables like position and time and depicting them in thousands of Feynman diagrams, the BCFW relations are best couched in terms of strange variables called “twistors,” and particle interactions can be captured in a handful of associated twistor diagrams. The relations gained rapid adoption as tools for computing scattering amplitudes relevant to experiments, such as collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. But their simplicity was mysterious.
 
“The terms in these BCFW relations were coming from a different world, and we wanted to understand what that world was,” Arkani-Hamed said. “That’s what drew me into the subject five years ago.”
 
With the help of leading mathematicians such as Pierre Deligne, Arkani-Hamed and his collaborators discovered that the recursion relations and associated twistor diagrams corresponded to a well-known geometric object. In fact, as detailed in a paper posted to arXiv.org in December by Arkani-Hamed, Bourjaily, Cachazo, Alexander Goncharov, Alexander Postnikov and Jaroslav Trnka, the twistor diagrams gave instructions for calculating the volume of pieces of this object, called the positive Grassmannian.
 
Named for Hermann Grassmann, a 19th-century German linguist and mathematician who studied its properties, “the positive Grassmannian is the slightly more grown-up cousin of the inside of a triangle,” Arkani-Hamed explained. Just as the inside of a triangle is a region in a two-dimensional space bounded by intersecting lines, the simplest case of the positive Grassmannian is a region in an N-dimensional space bounded by intersecting planes. (N is the number of particles involved in a scattering process.)
 
It was a geometric representation of real particle data, such as the likelihood that two colliding gluons will turn into four gluons. But something was still missing.
 
The physicists hoped that the amplitude of a scattering process would emerge purely and inevitably from geometry, but locality and unitarity were dictating which pieces of the positive Grassmannian to add together to get it. They wondered whether the amplitude was “the answer to some particular mathematical question,” said Trnka, a post-doctoral researcher at the California Institute of Technology. “And it is,” he said.
 
 
Arkani-Hamed and Trnka discovered that the scattering amplitude equals the volume of a brand-new mathematical object — the amplituhedron. The details of a particular scattering process dictate the dimensionality and facets of the corresponding amplituhedron. The pieces of the positive Grassmannian that were being calculated with twistor diagrams and then added together by hand were building blocks that fit together inside this jewel, just as triangles fit together to form a polygon.
 
Like the twistor diagrams, the Feynman diagrams are another way of computing the volume of the amplituhedron piece by piece, but they are much less efficient. “They are local and unitary in space-time, but they are not necessarily very convenient or well-adapted to the shape of this jewel itself,” Skinner said. “Using Feynman diagrams is like taking a Ming vase and smashing it on the floor.”
 
Arkani-Hamed and Trnka have been able to calculate the volume of the amplituhedron directly in some cases, without using twistor diagrams to compute the volumes of its pieces. They have also found a “master amplituhedron” with an infinite number of facets, analogous to a circle in 2-D, which has an infinite number of sides. Its volume represents, in theory, the total amplitude of all physical processes. Lower-dimensional amplituhedra, which correspond to interactions between finite numbers of particles, live on the faces of this master structure.
 
“They are very powerful calculational techniques, but they are also incredibly suggestive,” Skinner said. “They suggest that thinking in terms of space-time was not the right way of going about this.”
 
Quest for Quantum Gravity
 
The seemingly irreconcilable conflict between gravity and quantum field theory enters crisis mode in black holes. Black holes pack a huge amount of mass into an extremely small space, making gravity a major player at the quantum scale, where it can usually be ignored. Inevitably, either locality or unitarity is the source of the conflict.
“We have indications that both ideas have got to go,” Arkani-Hamed said. “They can’t be fundamental features of the next description,” such as a theory of quantum gravity.
String theory, a framework that treats particles as invisibly small, vibrating strings, is one candidate for a theory of quantum gravity that seems to hold up in black hole situations, but its relationship to reality is unproven — or at least confusing. Recently, a strange duality has been found between string theory and quantum field theory, indicating that the former (which includes gravity) is mathematically equivalent to the latter (which does not) when the two theories describe the same event as if it is taking place in different numbers of dimensions. No one knows quite what to make of this discovery. But the new amplituhedron research suggests space-time, and therefore dimensions, may be illusory anyway.
“We can’t rely on the usual familiar quantum mechanical space-time pictures of describing physics,” Arkani-Hamed said. “We have to learn new ways of talking about it. This work is a baby step in that direction.”
Even without unitarity and locality, the amplituhedron formulation of quantum field theory does not yet incorporate gravity. But researchers are working on it. They say scattering processes that include gravity particles may be possible to describe with the amplituhedron, or with a similar geometric object. “It might be closely related but slightly different and harder to find,” Skinner said.
 
Physicists must also prove that the new geometric formulation applies to the exact particles that are known to exist in the universe, rather than to the idealized quantum field theory they used to develop it, called maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. This model, which includes a “superpartner” particle for every known particle and treats space-time as flat, “just happens to be the simplest test case for these new tools,” Bourjaily said. “The way to generalize these new tools to [other] theories is understood.”
 
Beyond making calculations easier or possibly leading the way to quantum gravity, the discovery of the amplituhedron could cause an even more profound shift, Arkani-Hamed said. That is, giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry.
 
“In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object,” he said. “But it’s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless.”
 
While more work is needed, many theoretical physicists are paying close attention to the new ideas.
 
The work is “very unexpected from several points of view,” said Witten, a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. “The field is still developing very fast, and it is difficult to guess what will happen or what the lessons will turn out to be.”

I dodatak:
 
Quote
>Puzzling Thoughts
Locality and unitarity are the central pillars of quantum field theory, but as the following thought experiments show, both break down in certain situations involving gravity. This suggests physics should be formulated without either principle.
Locality says that particles interact at points in space-time. But suppose you want to inspect space-time very closely. Probing smaller and smaller distance scales requires ever higher energies, but at a certain scale, called the Planck length, the picture gets blurry: So much energy must be concentrated into such a small region that the energy collapses the region into a black hole, making it impossible to inspect. “There’s no way of measuring space and time separations once they are smaller than the Planck length,” said Arkani-Hamed. “So we imagine space-time is a continuous thing, but because it’s impossible to talk sharply about that thing, then that suggests it must not be fundamental — it must be emergent.”
Unitarity says the quantum mechanical probabilities of all possible outcomes of a particle interaction must sum to one. To prove it, one would have to observe the same interaction over and over and count the frequencies of the different outcomes. Doing this to perfect accuracy would require an infinite number of observations using an infinitely large measuring apparatus, but the latter would again cause gravitational collapse into a black hole. In finite regions of the universe, unitarity can therefore only be approximately known.


Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #6 on: 20-09-2013, 09:13:31 »
Ovo mi sasvim sigurno neće pomoći u lečenju glavobolje...
Mada, ima više poznatijih reči...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #7 on: 20-09-2013, 09:19:52 »
Relativno je lakim jezikom objašnjeno mada uvrće mozak svejedno.

Josephine

  • Guest
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #8 on: 20-09-2013, 10:59:32 »
Mogao bi da uvećaš font kada kvotuješ, Meho...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #9 on: 20-09-2013, 11:02:14 »
Pa, ima link za originalni tekst na početku, ovo kvotovanje je samo za svaki slučaj ako original nestane. A ctrl i plus na numeričkoj tastaturi rešava većinu ovih problema.

Josephine

  • Guest
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #10 on: 20-09-2013, 11:09:12 »
ne, ne. bolje je da povećaš font, veruj mi:) hvala na tekstu:)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #11 on: 20-09-2013, 11:43:24 »
Ma, naravno da je bolje, ali ja sam lenj.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #12 on: 25-10-2013, 09:13:39 »
Još malo glavolomnog sadržaja vezanog za kvantnu teoriju i vreme:

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement



Quote
Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove itWhen the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The result were not pretty.
It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.
Then in the mid-1960s, there was a breakthrough. The physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt successfully combined the previously incompatible ideas in a key result that has since become known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This is important because it avoids the troublesome infinites—a huge advance.
But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.
This conundrum, which physicists call ‘the problem of time’, has proved to be thorn in flesh of modern physicists, who have tried to ignore it but with little success.
Then in 1983, the theorists Don Page and William Wooters came up with a novel solution based on the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. This is the exotic property in which two quantum particles share the same existence, even though they are physically separated.
Entanglement is a deep and powerful link and Page and Wooters showed how it can be used to measure time. Their idea was that the way a pair of entangled particles evolve is a kind of clock that can be used to measure change.
But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.
In this case, Page and Wooters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.
But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.
This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.
Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wooter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.
Until now. Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page Wooters ideas. And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for ‘internal’ observers but absent for external ones.
The experiment involves the creation of a toy universe consisting of a pair of entangled photons and an observer that can measure their state in one of two ways. In the first, the observer measures the evolution of the system by becoming entangled with it. In the second, a god-like observer measures the evolution against an external clock which is entirely independent of the toy universe.
The experimental details are straightforward. The entangled photons each have a polarisation which can be changed by passing it through a birefringent plate. In the first set up, the observer measures the polarisation of one photon, thereby becoming entangled with it. He or she then compares this with the polarisation of the second photon. The difference is a measure of time.
In the second set up, the photons again both pass through the birefringent plates which change their polarisations. However, in this case, the observer only measures the global properties of both photons by comparing them against an independent clock.
In this case, the observer cannot detect any difference between the photons without becoming entangled with one or the other. And if there is no difference, the system appears static. In other words, time does not emerge.
“Although extremely simple, our model captures the two, seemingly contradictory, properties of the Page-Wooters mechanism,” say Moreva and co.
That’s an impressive experiment. Emergence is a popular idea in science. In particular, physicists have recently become excited about the idea that gravity is an emergent phenomenon. So it’s a relatively small step to think that time may emerge in a similar way.
What emergent gravity has lacked, of course, is an experimental demonstration that shows how it works in in practice. That’s why Moreva and co’s work is significant. It places an abstract and exotic idea on firm experimental footing for the first time.
Perhaps most significant of all is the implication that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not so incompatible after all. When viewed through the lens of entanglement, the famous ‘problem of time’ just melts away.
The next step will to extend the idea further, particularly to the macroscopic scale. It’s one thing to show how time emerges for photons, it’s quite another to show how it emerges for larger things such as humans and train timetables.
And therein lies another challenge.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691 :Time From Quantum Entanglement: An Experimental Illustration


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #13 on: 05-12-2013, 10:32:27 »
Veza između kvantne zapletenosti i crvotočina u kosmosu se pomalja i ako ova teorija zaživi na putu smo da pomirimo kvantnu teoriju sa Ajnštajnovom opštom teorijom relativiteta. Doduše, kritičari teorije vele da je u pitanju prosta matematička sličnost koja ne ukazuje na povezanost.

       

    A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement   





Quote
  This advance is so meta. Theoretical physicists have forged a connection between the concept of entanglement—itself a mysterious quantum mechanical connection between two widely separated particles—and that of a wormhole—a hypothetical connection between black holes that serves as a shortcut through space. The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity, perhaps the grandest goal in theoretical physics. But some experts argue that the connection is merely a mathematical analogy.
Entanglement links quantum particles so that fiddling with one can instantly affect another. According to the bizarre quantum laws that govern the subatomic realm, a tiny particle can be in two opposite conditions or states at once. For example, an atom can spin in one direction or the other—up or down—or both ways at once. That two-way state lasts only until the atom's spin is measured, however, at which point it "collapses" into either the up or down state. Two atoms can then be entangled so that both spin two ways at once but their spins are completely correlated, so that, for example, they point in opposite directions. Then, if the first atom is measured and found to be spin up, the second atom will instantly collapse into the down state, even if it's light-years away.
Wormholes, on the other hand, are a prediction of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes how massive objects warp space and time, or spacetime, to create the effects we call gravity. If an object is massive enough, it can create a funnellike hole in spacetime so steep that not even light can escape from it—a black hole. In principle, two widely separated black holes can connect like back-to-back trumpet horns to make a shortcut through spacetime called a wormhole.
At first glance, entanglement and wormholes both seem to offer a way around Einstein's dictum that nothing can travel faster than light. But in both cases, that hope is dashed. Entanglement cannot be used to send signals faster than light because one cannot control the output of the measurement on the first atom and thus willfully set the state of the distant one. Similarly, one can't zip through a wormhole because it's impossible to escape the black hole on the other end. Still, there is a connection. In June, Juan Maldacena, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and Leonard Susskind, a theorist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, imagined entangling the quantum states of two black holes. They then imagined pulling the black holes apart. When that happens, they argued, a bona fide wormhole forms between the two black holes.
That was perhaps not so surprising, because the researchers started with black holes. But now two independent teams of scientists say that it should also be possible to create a wormhole connection between two ordinary quantum particles, such as quarks that make up protons and neutrons.
Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria in Canada and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington, Seattle, start by imagining an entangled quark-antiquark pair residing in ordinary 3D space, as they described online on 20 November in Physical Review Letters. The two quarks rush away from each other, approaching the speed of light so that it becomes impossible to pass signals from one to the other. The researchers assume that the 3D space where the quarks reside is a hypothetical boundary of a 4D world. In this 3D space, the entangled pair is connected by a kind of conceptual string. But in the 4D space, the string becomes a wormhole.
Julian Sonner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge then builds upon Karch’s and Jensen’s work. He imagines a quark-antiquark pair that pops into existence in a strong electric field, which then sends the oppositely charged particles accelerating in opposite directions. Sonner also finds that the entangled particles in the 3D world are connected by a wormhole in the 4D world, as he also reported online on 20 November in Physical Review Letters.
To arrive at this result, Jensen, Karch, and Sonner use the so-called holographic principle, a concept invented by Maldacena that states that a quantum theory with gravity in a given space is equivalent to a quantum theory without gravity in a space with one less dimension that makes up the original space's boundary. In other words, black holes inside the 4D space and a wormhole between them are mathematically equivalent to their holographic projections existing on the boundary in 3D. These projections are essentially elementary particles that function according to the laws of quantum mechanics, without gravity, and a string connecting them. “The wormhole and entangled pair don't live in the same space,” Karch says. But, he adds, mathematically they are equivalent.
But how big an insight is this? It depends on whom you ask. Susskind and Maldacena note that in both papers, the original quantum particles reside in a space without gravity. In a simplified, gravity-free 3D model of our world, there can’t be any black holes or wormholes, Susskind adds, so the connection to a wormhole in a higher dimensional space is mere mathematical analogy. The wormhole and entanglement equivalence “only makes sense in a theory with gravity,” Susskind says.
However, Karch and colleagues say that their calculations are an important first step toward verifying Maldacena and Susskind’s theory. Their toy model without gravity, Karch says, “gives a concrete realization of the idea that wormhole geometry and entanglement can be different manifestations of the same physical reality."
   


http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i21/e211602

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i21/e211603

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #14 on: 14-01-2014, 10:25:06 »
Why we think there’s a Multiverse, not just our Universe


(Ne mogu da ga kopiram, ima previše slika i grafikona. Da ne pominjem jednačine  :-? :-? :-? :-? )

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #15 on: 14-01-2014, 10:33:09 »
Čitaš li ti Skrobonju?  :)
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #16 on: 14-01-2014, 10:46:14 »
Pa... ne? Zašto?

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #17 on: 14-01-2014, 10:50:48 »
Pa, multiverzumi...
Mica

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #18 on: 14-01-2014, 10:51:46 »
More, čitaš li TI Skrobonju?


ed. Dobro, de, jedan multiverzum, ali multiverzumi!!!! To je još jednačina.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #19 on: 14-01-2014, 11:07:48 »

Mene pitaš, čitam li Skrobonju?

Pa, pročitao sam do sada praktično sve što je napisao, osim poslednjeg romana Sva Teslina deca, koga mi je poslao u fazi rada na njemu da mu dam sugestije, ali zbog zauzetosti nisam uspeo da stignem da pročitam više od stotinak stranica, a on se već pojavio u štampi. Zato sam prestao da ga čitam, pa ću ga natenane pročitati, od početka, u finalnoj obradi, na nekom od odmora...


Ne verujem da postoji u galaksiji čovek koji je pročitao više Skorobonjog originalnog teksta (lilit uključujući, ma koliko to nemoguće zvučalo)...


Kad je pravio bibliografiju svojih ostvarenja dodao sam mu priču za koju ni sam nije znao da ju je napisao...


Mene pitaš čitam li Skrobonju?
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #20 on: 14-01-2014, 11:21:28 »
Ja sam koncept multiverzuma svario čitajući Murkoka, a posle X-Men i Marvelove stripove generalno tako da je meni to što bi se reklo "normalna stvar".

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #21 on: 14-01-2014, 11:23:05 »
Duboko se izvinjavam.


Učinilo mi se da sam osetio dozu iznenađenja u tvom postu, pa plaho reagovah...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #22 on: 14-01-2014, 11:25:21 »
Oh, ne, ne, nema mesta izvinjavanju. Moje izbezumljene face (simbolizovane smajlijima) su tu bile zbog količine matematike u tekstu koji sam linkovao a koja zahteva da se čovek malo ozbiljnije udubi u čitanje ako želi da razume zaključak koji veli: "eto, zato postoji multiverzum".

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #23 on: 14-01-2014, 11:28:46 »
Nego da te pitam. Ti meni napišeš da ne čitam ništa, pa mirna Bačka. Eto, pročitao si stotinak strana Skrobonje više od mene. Mene je više zanimala priča o multiverzumima. Jel' to znači da ima više multiverzuma? Mada bi mogao da mi objasni i Meho. On je to apsolvirao kod Murkoka i Marvela.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #24 on: 14-01-2014, 11:39:22 »
Da pojasnim da u tekstu koji sam linkovao pominju samo multiverzum, ne multiverzume. To je Mića u šali rekao "multiverzumi".

Što se tiče Murkoka, meni je kao detetu bilo skroz mindblowing kada sam video da se likovi iz očigledno različitih univerzuma u nekim momentima susreću, pa još kada se ispostavilo da su neki od njih različite verzije istog arhetipskog like  :-? :-? :-?


Kod Marvela (i kod konkurencije u DC-ju) je koncept multiverzuma uglavnom korišćen kao narativna poštapalica koja se upotrebi kada ne možeš neku priču da ispričaš u "glavnom" univerzumu jer njeni događaji protivreče uspostavljenoj istoriji tog sveta. Mada je bilo i inventivnijih korišćenja, naravno. Kod DC-ja je recimo bilo interesantno gledati kako je polovinom osamdesetih urađen veliki pokušaj pakovanja svih univerzuma u jedan i uređivanja istorije da bude konzistentna...

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #25 on: 14-01-2014, 11:55:33 »
Nije bilo u šali. Skrobonja piše o multiverzumima. Meni je multiverzum uvek pomalo bio posledica racionalizacije putovanja kroz vreme: ako već putujemo kroz vreme i tako menjamo realnost, sasvim je očekivano da ta nova realnost pripada drugom univerzumu. Ovo sa jednačinama je nova racionalizacija nastala iz iste ideje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #26 on: 14-01-2014, 11:59:34 »
Aha. A kako se multiverzumi kod Skrobonje razlikuju/ klasifikuju?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #27 on: 14-01-2014, 12:07:42 »
Ofrlje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #28 on: 14-01-2014, 12:10:54 »
Pa, ne, mislim, koji je razlog za postojanje više od jednog multiverzuma?? Kako je to književno opravdano?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #29 on: 14-01-2014, 12:15:13 »
Ove pravoslavne godine u svemu se slažemo.


Postoji još jedno pričanje o multiverzumu (drugom), ali taj je moja ujdurma. Ni to nisi čitao.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #30 on: 14-01-2014, 12:16:50 »
Ali možeš da mi pojasniš kako si ti onda opravdao postojanje više od jednog multiverzuma. Mislim, ja ne uspevam da izmaštam kako bi postojalo više od jednog.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #31 on: 14-01-2014, 12:19:07 »
Borhesov "Vrt sa stazama koje se račvaju". Paralelni univerzumi. Koristili su to mnogi. Jan Mekdonald ti je neki od modernijih primera. SF klasika...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #32 on: 14-01-2014, 12:22:33 »
Paralelni univerzumi su multiverzum. Ali šta su multiverzumi, kako se oni račvaju?


Mekdonalda sam pročitao dva romana i ni jedan nije imao koncept multiverzuma pa mi ova referenca ne pomaže  :( :(

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #33 on: 14-01-2014, 12:28:45 »
Ako si mene pitao, onda ćeš morati da pročitaš moje Svemirske Cigane (obe knjige). Ili pitaj Miću. On sigurno zna. Ako nije zaboravio.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #34 on: 14-01-2014, 12:30:35 »
Pa, da, prvo mi zaglicate maštu a onda kao "ko te jebe, čitaj knjige". Pa da sam hteo da čitam knjige, ne bih se doseljavao na internet!!!!

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #35 on: 14-01-2014, 12:33:31 »
Što si onda pročitao DVA Mekdonalda?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.985
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #36 on: 14-01-2014, 12:38:41 »
Možda su dva multiverzuma multiverzum, kao što je dvaput beskonačno beskonačno.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #37 on: 14-01-2014, 12:43:03 »
Što si onda pročitao DVA Mekdonalda?

Navukli me mangupi. Skrobonja ga je mnogo hajpovao i onda je Nekrovil pojavio u Monolitu i ja kao, ajde, Monolit je to, Boban me nikad do sad nije prevario i onda kao, budućnost, zombiji, genetkiinženjeringkrilaludilopewpewništanisamshvatio. A čitao sam i Desolation Road jer ga je DrZŽ objavio u svojoj biblioteci a tu sam računao, DrZŽ je ipak naš čovek, old skul lik, ne bi on ovo objavio da nije valjano. Ali nije me ni to baš kupilo. Od svega što sam pročitao od Mekdonalda (a čitao sam još nekoliko priča) dopala mi se samo ona jedna priča gde se irski đilkoš smuva sa vanzemaljkom koja odlepi od seksualne želje kad god oseti miris njegove kožne jakne a posle je ubije IRA. Tako da je moje ponovljeno razočaranje u najhajpovanijeg pisca na ovim prostorima tokom devedesetih godina bilo dosta zaslužno za to da se odreknem knjiga i prigrlim ambis interneta.


Možda su dva multiverzuma multiverzum, kao što je dvaput beskonačno beskonačno.

Pa to je i moj rezon. Zato i pitam koji je kriterijum da se prepoznaju dva distinktna multiverzuma a ne samo jedan. Primera radi, kriterijum za razlikovanje dva univerzuma bi bilo recimo to da u njima neka fizička konstanta nema jednaku vrednost - na primer, brzina svetlosti u našem je 300k kilometara u sekundi a u drugom je svega 300 metara, pa to ima silne druge implikacije itd. Ali pošto multiverzum (jedan) već, kao koncept obuhvata sve takve varijacije - barem kako ja mogu da ih zamislim - onda me zbunjuje po čemu se onda razlikuje drugi multiverzum.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #38 on: 14-01-2014, 12:52:01 »
I sad mi je Mekdonald kriv što ne čitaš? I Mića koji ladno napiše da je SF klasik. Bre, Boban i ja smo klasika za Mekdonalda. Inače, u pravu si kad napišeš da bi drugi multiverzum morao da bude zasnovan na bar jednom parametru koji nije svojstven našem multiverzumu.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #39 on: 14-01-2014, 12:57:55 »
Nije samo Mekdonald, najviše je kriva moja pretencioznost, kada sam odlučio da moram da čitam više teorije pa je sad ispalo da čitam maltene samo teoriju.

Mislim da je Mića Mekdonalda nazvao modernijim primerom, a da je opaska o klasici bila vezana za nešto drugo što bih morao da sam znam bez navođenja.

I, da, to za kriterijum me i zanima. Dakle, dajte da to raspravimo, kako se razlikuju dva multiverzuma?

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #40 on: 14-01-2014, 13:26:29 »
Evo jedne lake podele. Svi univerzumi u koje može da prodre informacija iz drugog univerzuma čine skup koji je jedan multiverzum. Svi univerzumi za koje to ne važi su neki drugi multiverzum (ili multiverzumi).

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.730
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #41 on: 14-01-2014, 13:34:13 »
mac, je l ovo tvoja podela, ili neka opšte prihvaćena?
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #42 on: 14-01-2014, 13:41:54 »
Ma moja. Cela ta priča o multiverzumu je u ovom trenutku vrlo mutna, malo šta se zna, osim da postoji, a i to se ne zna empirijski, tako da pretpostavke lete na sve strane kao neutrini.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #43 on: 14-01-2014, 13:42:53 »
Podela nije loša za moj groš, mada jeste arbitrarna. Mislim, može i da se kaže da su univerzumi koji međusobno komuniciraju podskup unutar jednog multiverzuma - dakle, ova vrsta kriterijuma ne daje nužno više od jednog multiverzuma (drugi kriterijum može da bude takođe arbitraran - svi univerzumi u kojima je plankova konstanta manja od te i te vrednosti su jedan multiverzum, svi u kojima je veća su drugi, pošto vrednost plankove konstante određuje veličinu kvanta pa to onda ima uticaja na sve ostale vrednosti u univerzumu. ). Neki... jači kriterijum bi mi bio uverljiviji.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #44 on: 14-01-2014, 14:00:31 »
Eto, nekima je sasvim lako. Otprilike to što je napisao Mac napisao je i Hoking, jedino je Hoking bio skroman, pa se ograničio na univerzum. Dakle, njegovo tumačenje je analogija Hokingovog.


Sa druge strane, mi bismo mogli da se bacimo i na problematiku multiverzuma, ali ovaj forum je suviše neozbiljno mesto. Naravno, pišem samo sa tačke gledišta fantastike, da budem precizniji, naučne fantastike. Za mene se pitanje multiverzuma ne rešava sa nekoliko jednačina i crteža. Ono, zaista, mora da počiva na elementima koje ne može da pokrije jedan multiverzum. Tvoj stav da bi to mogla da bude bar brzina svetlosti od 300 m/s je relevantan. Naravno, to može da bude zanimljiva pozicija, ali ostaje pitanje šta nam bitno donosi. Nešto što se u fantastici, posebno u domaćoj fantastici, više ne posmatra celishodnim, jeste upravo pitanje zašto?, ili šta nam novo donosi. Mislim da je neko ovde pomenuo, ali smo to olako preskočili, fantastika sadrži i kriterijume uverljivosti koje realna književnost nema kao problem.


Sa treće strane, imam ja i svoju teoriju za pristupanje fantastici, držim se toga kao premise u pisanju, ali to što se događa u našem selu nikoga ne zanima. Mislim da sam u jednom kraćem tekstu sve sažeo kao lični pristup naučnoj fantastici, čak ga je ZStef. negde i postavio, ali to niko ne vidi od silnih linkova na engleskom jeziku. Možda je najbolje da se uzdržim i da prepustim naknadnom kopanju.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #45 on: 14-01-2014, 14:10:37 »
Da, pa ja sam ideju o brzini svetlosti od 300 metara u sekundi i pomenuo upravo kao nešto što mi deluje kao polazna osnova za pisanje fantastične proze koja bi iz ove premise (možda) mogla da izvuče posledice koje bi prevazišle puke "fizičke" razlike između našeg i tog univerzuma. Lem je, recimo imao onu sjajnu priču koja nije imala multiverzalnu premisu ali je bila bazirana na ideji da naučnici otkrivaju živa bića u vreloj, jelte, plazmi i onda razvijaju tezu da zapravo, zbog visokog energetskog sadržaja takvog okruženja (ili tako nešto), život u našem univerzumu, načelno, po pravilu nastaje upravo u koronama zvezda itd. te da je naše postojanje u komparativno ledenom delu univerzuma, dakle, predaleko od zvezde, anomalija i, kako već to kod Lema biva, dolazi se do zaključka da smo mi time osuđeni na otpadništvo, da nikada nećemo ni naći način da komuniciramo sa većinskom populacijom svemira jer u odnosu na njih živimo nekoliko potencija presporim tempom i ona nas ne bi ni prepoznala kao živa bića itd.



scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #46 on: 14-01-2014, 14:45:46 »
Sad me povlačiš tamo gde ja ne bih. Vreme Lema, Klarka pa i nekih drugih je vreme stvaranja okvira za fantastične priče. To je vreme antiantropomorfije kojoj se Z.Ž. toliko divio, a BoB postavio pitanje: "Šta mene briga što je stonoga slomila 76 nogu levo?". Što se mene tiče, BoB je apsolutno bio u pravu. Takođe, priča o irskom đilkošu je ljudskija i pripada vremenu promenjene uznapredovale fantastike. Ako promenimo sredinu ili pomerimo vreme, u središtu je i dalje ono šta se događa nama. Ako danas menjamo ili postavljamo nove okvire, ta promena se događa samo zato da bismo dobili drugačije uslove, ali u njima i dalje posmatramo ljude i njihove odnose.


 
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #47 on: 14-01-2014, 15:03:46 »
Ma, dobro, pomenuo sam Lema jer mi je prvo palo na pamet kako varijacija na jednu stvar u vezi sa prirodom dovodi do velike metafizičke posledice (i to kod njega čak unutar istog univerzuma). Ja se svakako slažem sa tobom u tome da bi proza koja bi pre svega ispitivala suhe fizičke posledice promene nekog od parametara meni bila manje zanimljiva od one koja bi u to unela hjumen tač, zato sam gore i pomenuo "pisanje fantastične proze koja bi iz ove premise (možda) mogla da izvuče posledice koje bi prevazišle puke "fizičke" razlike između našeg i tog univerzuma".

Opet, ne mislim da to nužno treba da budu stvari na razini emocija ili kakve socijalne proze, mada je i to apsolutno legitiman pristup. Kad razmišljam o SF delima koja su mi bila fascinantna na ime neke radikalne "naučne" premise često se prisetim onih koja su to pre svega na tom nekom metafizičkom nivou - od recimo Andersonovog Tau zero (koji pokazuje ljude koji prežive kraj jednog univerzuma, novi veliki prasak i pojave se u novom univerzumu), pa preko Priestovog Invertiranog sveta (koji ima elemente socijalne proze (klasno uređenje društva, strukture moći koje tu moć ne puštaju jer insistiraju da je jedino ovakav način života kadar da obezbedi opstanak) kojima nas navuče da navijamo za glavnog junaka za koga se nadamo da će revolucijom poremetiti status quo samo da bi nas na kraju ošamario prikazom da su zapravo strukture moći u pravu i da junaci žive u jednom skoro pa nezamislivom svetu), sve do nebrojenih priča kojima više ne pamtim ni imena ni autore ali su mi se urezale u sećanje tim jakim opisima svetova koji su radikalno drugačiji od našeg najčešće po samo jednom parametru, ali taj parametar menja sve i ljudsku egzistenciju dovodi u mnogo oštriji fokus (bila je jedna u Siriujusu u kojoj neobjašjivo, gravitacija jedog dana počne da deluje pod uglom od devedeset stepeni... pa onda jedna u Alefu o narodu koji živi na litici, bukvalno provodeći čitav život, gradeći društvo, porodice itd. na vertikalnoj površini).

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.562
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #48 on: 14-01-2014, 15:26:28 »
ван топика: мехо која је то лемова прича, не сећам је се, а радо бих је прочитао.
...barcode never lies
FLA

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #49 on: 14-01-2014, 15:30:39 »
Nadam se da naslova mogu da se sete neki manje izlapeli ljudi od mene. Ako se dobro sećam, izašla je u nekom Monolitu, ali pregledanjem ovog topika naišao sam samo na priču "Čekić" a nisam siguran da je to ta.

Edit: nije to ta, evo čekića u originalu. Grrr, ne sećam se kako se ova zvala...