What happens for a reversed Blackhole process, white-hole?, could not occur without DarkMatter becoming visible?..Darkmatter would actually have to be the radiative source of visible Matter.

Einstein field equations have an expression for Darkmatter to convert to Light Matter, entropy in a time-reversed universe would insist that particle collisions, become more feable and less energetic, producing less visible light from atomic interations, light would tend to be fading to grey!

The further one travels back along a “time-reversed” arrow, the more one becomes entangled into a “ONE-PARTICLE” quark soup ?

The initial state may be comprable to that of a Bose-Einstein-Condensate singularity ?..a “one-particle” fluctuation would really be an “all-particle” fluctuation!

I think the same is true for quantum mechanics, but will readily admit that I don’t understand the details and might be wrong. Wavefunction collapse ala the Copenhagen interpretation is definitely not reversible, although evolution according to the Schrodinger equation definitely is. My suspicion is that a more complete understanding will be able to derive the apparent collapse of the wavefunction from ordinary Schrodinger evolution plus thermodynamic considerations, but I don’t think this is well understood right now.

(my personal opinion is that wavefunction collapse doesn’t occur and black holes don’t exist, but I only studied physics up to 2nd year of university, so please correct any misunderstandings I’ve made)

If you allow “monte carlo” methods, then I suggest the valuation of “Boltzman’s brain” held a time of “illumination” and supersymmetriclaly explained the universe in expression?

“Reimann hypothesis” has to have some (phenom)validation process?

So ya, here is one way to occupy your mind while explaining supersymmetry?

So, the arrow of time is a subtle thing even before take gravity into account. But in our universe, gravity makes it a lot more subtle.

Was the universe ever really flat? Sorry for layman generalizations, with increase in curvature, it being qunatum dynamcial views seems consistent with and up to a point?

While these seem like “simple generalized deductions” I think one must want to have current “experimental developement” caring the thought processes along some road currently being explored.

While one talks about “reductionistic processes” we are still refering to the universe as it was developing along the microseconds, “still” within the capability of the universe in expression.

The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 1019eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

Not pet theories. Strominger’s theory(?) perhaps along with the basis of particle creation “pointing” the way towards entropic complexity and expansion, in the resulting particle showers?

Does this all fit?

now, as for following the comments …

cheers

a>

Determinism here means that the Planck scale itself goes to zero as hbar does. L^2 = G(hbar)/c^3 which means that L goes like c^(-2) in Louise’s picture. In Padmanabhan’s thermodynamic gravity the Euler equation sees horizon area entropy in that S = (A/4)L^2 = (A/4)c^(-4).

In Einstein’s static model, G=0 when there is no matter.

Rather, G=0 when there is no matter density, no mass generation, just as G->0 in the new class of massless spin foam QFTs. The use of a so-called (LQG) cosmological constant to ‘perturb’ about this point doesn’t mean taking Lambda literally in the classical theory. On the contrary, this sort of perturbation appears to destroy the validity of GR at large scales.

In the Cornell thread you recently pointed out that

In the static state, pressure is proportional to -rho …

which, again, is a kind of topological condition in the spin foam constructions.

Dirac’s Hole Theory works to hold this model stable and “flat” …

It turns out that we need a better physical picture than this to get everything to work, so this is where we begin to disagree. ‘Flatness’ should be a direct result of a Machian principle, which of course was never implemented in GR. But any naive attempt to consider the mutual dependence of local acceleration and ‘distant’ stuff runs into a problem analogous to that of instantaneous action in Newtonian gravity, so something has to give.

If the conditions are found to be inherent in high energy physics(QGP) then how would such a condition run counter-intuitively to what curvature had been implied?

A “state of equillibrium” in a highly curved world?

Georgi Dvali:

The cosmic acceleration of the universe indicates that the laws of General Relativity get modified not only at very short but also at very large distances, Dvali says. It is this modification, and not dark energy, that is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

A “determinism” at planck scale?