Quantum Corve's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 13 most recent journal entries recorded in
Quantum Corve's LiveJournal:
Monday, December 18th, 2006  1:42 pm [wallermax] 
Unifying gravity and electromagnetism (2)
Let us see how the gravityelectromagnetism unified force is mediated by carrier particles. Tachyons are still hypothetical particles that, if they existed, they would travel at superluminal speeds. Under special relativity assumptions, a tachyon would have real energy and momentum, but imaginary mass. This means tachyons could transmit real energy momentum, but we could not exploit tachyons to achieve FTL communication (localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal). See John Baez web page about tachyons: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.htmlAnyway, we can propose a wonderful interpretation of quantum mechanics based on tachyons, as follows: Assume a photon emitted by a source A, and absorbed by a receiver B, is the result of the emission by A of a spin1/2 tachyon propagating at a superluminal speed 2c, reflecting off B, and returning to be reabsorbed by A. That reflexion cycle would be interpreted as the emission of one photon by A, at speed c, and absorbed by B. And we claim energymomentum has been transmitted after that reflexion cycle has been completed. Now, let us call 1/ntachyon a spin1/n tachyon propagating at speed nc, for some integer n=1,2,3,.... . Notice that if n > 1 then we get tachyons, which do not carry classical information, but quantum one, so a 1tachyon is actually a tardyon, a photon, which carries classical information, as it propagates at c. Then, we want to know more about nature of 1/2tachyons. So, we can assume a 1/2tachyon is the result of a 1/4tachyon propagating at 4c. When A has emitted one 1/4tachyon and reabsorbed it after reflexion off B, we claim one 1/2tachyon has been emitted by A and absorbed by B. But, we want to know how a photon is generated from a 1/4tachyon. This leads us to claim that reabsorbed 1/4tachyon must follow an extra reflexion cycle. That is, a 1/4tachyon performs two reflexion cycles at speed 4c in order to generate one photon emitted from A to B. A 1/4tachyon needs to complete two reflexion cycles in order to carry energymomentum from A to B. We say that a 1/4tachyon is a photon generator of order 2, as 1/2^2 = 1/4. In general, a photon generator of order i would be a spin1/(2^î) tachyon propagating at superluminal speed (2^î)c. We can depict a hierarchy diagram (as far as ASCII art let us do so) to show how classical information emerges from quantum information, as recursive reflexion cycles of a hypothetical ultimate generator of order i: /\ spin1 (photon) /\ /\ spin1/2 /\ /\ /\ /\ spin1/4 /\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\ spin1/8 ... ... ... spin1/(2^î) It is a hierarchy split of 1 bit of information into 2^i "infrabits" of order i. One bit emerges from two 1/2bits, it is saying that there is a qubit in level 1. That qubit emerges from four 1/4bits in level 2, and so on. A pure qubit state is a linear superposition of two states. the qubit can be expressed as a linear combination of 0> and 1> phi> = a0> + b1> where a and b are probability amplitudes and can in general be complex, such that they are in convex combination a^2 + b^2 = 1. The state a0> can be split as a0> = a_10> + b_11>, with (a_1/a)^2 + (b_1/a)^2 = 1 and also state b1> as b1> = a_20> + b_21>, with (a_2/b)^2 + (b_2/b)^2 = 1 In general, the state phi> can be expressed until order i as phi> = (a_1 + a_2 +...+ a_i)0> + (b_1 + b_2 +...+ b_i)1> An ultimate generator, as the order i tends to infinite, would be a 0spin tachyon propagating at infinite speed. But, a tachyon propagating at infinite speed actually carries zero energymomentum. A generator of order i transmits total energy (2^i)E from A to B, where E is the proper generatorenergy, as it performs 2^i cycles. The total energy transmitted by a 0spin tachyon would be actually zero, so we need a cutoff, from which real nonzero energy can be carried by an ultimate generator. How can we solve it? Let us now divide time interval T into infinitesimal intervals dt, such that force instances of F and force instances of F are located radomly in each dt, but preserving their respective probabilities p and q. There will be then N = T/dt infinitesimal intervals dt in T. We can depict schematically this distribution in ASCII diagram: (F)instances F_1 F_5F_6 F_N            ...  0...T            ...  F_1 F_5 F_N (F) instances We can assume different tachyons arrive to B from A, at different speeds. A tachyon decreases its energy as its superluminal speed increase. A total energy E transmitted from A to B is finite, then the sum of energies of sucessive tachyons must converge. Indeed, we have the series E = E_1 + E_2 + E_3 ... , 1 = E_1/E + E_2/E + E_3/E ... , which fits pretty well into 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ..., so we assume E_1/E = 1/2, E_2/E = 1/4, E_3/E = 1/8, ... E_i/E = 1/(2^i)= 1/N If we think there must be an ultimate order i then, we can consider r = R_h, with R_h Hubble radius, and dr = l_p, with l_p Planck length, such that T = r/c = R_h/c, and dt = l_p/c, so N = T/dt = R_h/l_p = 2^i, therefore i = ln(R_h/l_p)/ln2. The notable result is that i = 1/alpha, where alpha is finestructure constant. alpha = ln2 / ln(R_h/l_p)  Sunday, December 17th, 2006  2:05 pm [wallermax] 
Unifying gravity and electromagnetism (1)
Surprisingly, it is very easy to unify gravity and electromagnetism. First of all, we must pay attention to the mechanism we're going to apply in order to achieve this unification. It has to do with inertia. If you apply a force F to a rest mass m along time t, and then you apply a force F to it, along time t', you get partial velocity v_f and final v_f', such that, v_f = (F/m)*t v_f' = v_f  (F/m)*t', v_f' = (F/m)*(t  t'). This result is equivalent to applying an effective force f to m along time T = t t', as effective acceleration is a = v_f'/(t t') = (F/m)(t  t')/(t t'), then effective force f is f = m*a = F*(t  t')/(t t') So, with any pair of invariant opposite forces F and F, we can achieve any effective force f in the range [F,F], at the end of any time interval T. t is total time F is acting, t' is total time F is acting, T = t t' is total time. Once you have effective force f, you can split it into two opposites forces f_1 and f_2, such that, f_1 = F*t/T, and f_2 = F*t'/T = F*(1  t/T), f_2 = F f_1, so f = f_1 f_2, and F = f_1  f_2. Let us now transform this mechanism into a stochastic one. This means we distribute randomly copies of F and F along time T, but preserving the effective force f as the net result. So, now we must deal with probabilities. The probability p for this mechanism to yield f_1 is actually p = t/T, and probability q for this mechanism to yield f_2 is actually q = t'/T = (1  t/T), of course, p q = 1. In this mechanism it is forbidden for F and F instances to act simultaneously, overlapping isn't allowed. Now we are ready to unify gravity and electromagnetism by means of this stochastic mechanism. Let us begin, for simplicity, with electron electron interactions. Identify force f_1 as the electrostatic force one electron exerts to the other, at distance r, f_1 = K_c*e^2/r^2, where K_c is electrostatic constant, e is electron electric charge. Identify force f_2 as the newtonian gravitational force one electron exerts to the other, at distance r, f_2 =  G*m_e^2/r^2, where G is gravitational constant, m_e is electron rest mass. So, you have effective force f = f_1 f_2 = K_c*e^2/r^2  G*m_e^2/r^2, and unified force F = f_1  f_2 = K_c*e^2/r^2 G*m_e^2/r^2. But, where is time interval T?. It is defined in distance r, T = r/c, where c is speed of light in the vacuum. Therefore, we are considering a unified interaction acting along T. This means there must be nonlocal fluctuations of vacuum. Forces F and F are randomly distributed along T, but preserving their complementary probabilities p and q. After some algebra, we get p = t/T = 1/((G*m_e^2)/(K_c*e^2) 1), q = t'/T = 1  1/((G*m_e^2)/(K_c*e^2) 1). p = (K_c*e^2)/(G*m_e^2 K_c*e^2) q = 1  (K_c*e^2)/(G*m_e^2 K_c*e^2), that is q = (G*m_e^2)/(G*m_e^2 K_c*e^2). If the unified force F is acting on electron A at an instant, then an opposite force F must be simultaneously acting on electron B, and viceversa. So, both electrons are quantum entangled, and their states collapse yielding correlated forces, f and f, at the end of time T. This unification tells us that electric charge and mass of electron can be "predicted" from a hypercharge Y_e. Define the strength S of unified electronelectron interaction as S = 4*pi*Y_e, The unified field U_e is then, U_e = Y_e/r^2, identify U_e as being U_e = F/Y_e, U_e = (K_c*e^2 G*m_e^2)/(Y_e*r^2), then Y_e = ± sqrt(K_c*e^2 G*m_e^2), where signature / is addressed by probabilities p and q. Thus, it is trivial to "predict" e and m_e: e = Y_e*sqrt(p / K_c), and m_e = Y_e*sqrt(q / G). as q = (G*m_e^2)/(G*m_e^2 K_c*e^2), and p = (K_c*e^2)/(G*m_e^2 K_c*e^2), that's a = sqrt(p) is the probability amplitude for the stochastic mechanism to yield F in an infinitesimal time dt over time interval T = r/c, and b = sqrt(q) is the probability amplitude for the stochastic mechanism to yield F.  2:00 pm [wallermax] 
Lady Cocoom's legacy will
"Dear daughter and sons, this is my will: Bobby, I remember your birth, it was the 4th of July of 2011, at 4:51 am, in a cold Chicago hospital  Earth Planet. Loved Anne, I remember your birth as one of the most sweated suffered moments in my life. It happened the 4th of July of 2011, at 4:51 am, in Salt Lake City  Utah Planet  Andromeda Galaxy. Nasty Joshua, you are the best. Surprisingly, I remember your birth too, It was the 4th of July of 2011, at 4:51 am, in Alamo Gordo Planet  Alpha Centauri. Here on Earth, where we are met, I leave all my wealth to the younger one. Goodbye, I'm dying now". *Executor's notes: All dates are GMT. The younger one means here the last one to be born.  1:58 pm [wallermax] 
Recipe to prepare a delicious Casimir effect's cake
The Casimir force per unit area F_c / A for idealized, perfectly conducting plates with vacuum between them is F_c / A =  hbar*c*pi^2/(240*d^2), where hbar is reduced Planck constant (hba = h/2*pi) c is speed of light in the vacuum, and d is distance between plates. Now, my recipe: Replace factor 1/240 by alpha/2, being alpha the finestructure constant alpha = e^2 / (hbar*c*4*pi*e_0) alpha = 1/137.03599911(44)..., where e is electron charge, and e_0 is permittivity of vacuum. So, this substitution assumes an error bar of about ±(2/240*alpha  1)/2 = ± 0.070983329625... . After some arithmetic, we get F_c / A =  pi*e^2/(8*e_0*d^4) Coulomb force f between two electron charges at distance d is f = e^2/4pi*e_0*d^2, so F_c/A = f*pi^2/2*d^2, this is F_c/A = f/a, where a is an area, and it's function of d, a = 2*d^2/pi^2 , this corresponds to a constant solid angle, Omega, for a spherical shell of radius d: Omega = 2/pi^2 steradians, a = Omega*d^2 Now, the tasting of the cake: We know the plates are electrically neutral, even so they attract (casimir effect) each other at distance d. From the assumption defined in the recipe, I claim the origin of that force is electrostatic. Notice in F_c/A = f/a, the negative sign telling us it is an attractive force. So, Van der Waals and Casimir forces would have the same common origin.  1:55 pm [wallermax] 
Spontaneous absorption
Spontaneous absorption would be the process by which an atom, molecule or nucleus in a ground state spontaneously jump to a higherenergy state, resulting in the absorption of a photon or a phonon. My statement is: if spontaneous emission occur, then a spontaneous absorption must occur elsewhere too, such that both process must be correlated. The emission and absorption of a photon (or phonon) seem to be two sides of the same coin. They begin simultaneously and end simultaneously too. These two process seem to be really the same process, and it is nonlocal. An atom A spontaneously emitting a photon and an atom B spontaneously absorbing it, means A and B are quantum entangled. The probability, a, for A to emit that photon and the probability, b, for B to absorb it, must be in convex combination (a^2 + b^2 = 1). Now my insight: If spontaneous absorption really occurs as a correlated process with a spontaneous emission, as a product of quantum entanglement, then the absorption takes place from the interior of the receiver quantum system, arising at random from background vacuum. It does not come from any vicinity, it is nonlocal, so a photon does not propagate strictly in spacetime. It is like that photon would propagate through a special quantum channel, other than ordinary spacetime, such that it can't be perturbed, cloned or learnt in its path from the source to the receiver. In this sense, there wouldn't exist free photons, because emission and absorption must be correlated, yielding an almost surely common event. A photon (or phonon), sooner or later, will be absorbed by a system (in proper source time, it is absorbed at t=0). My question is, does this interpretation of spontaneous absorption fit pretty well into quantum mechanics?.  1:50 pm [wallermax] 
A very difficult problem about electromagnetism
Hello guys, this is a simple question, but split into four redundant questions, for sake of being wellunderstood: What is the probability for two like electric charges to repel each other at distance d?. What is the probability for two unlike electric charges to attract each other at distance d?. Is electrostatic attraction at distance d an almost surely event for two unlike electric charges?. Is electrostatic repulsion at distance d an almost surely event for two like electric charges?.  1:47 pm [wallermax] 
Old discussion revival about Foucault's pendulum
I'd like to recover an old discussion, hold by physicists Denizot, Rudzki and Tesar, a hundred years ago, concerning the motion of a Foucault's pendulum. The main question they struggled about was: "Is the Foucault pendulum's plane of swing fixed relative to the stars?". We know that the precession of a Foucault's pendulum is caused by a Coriolis acceleration, and there are, at least, two frames of reference involved, such that one of those frames is regarded as rotating with respect to the other one, regarded as inertial. A Coriolis acceleration is expressed by: a = 2(W x V), where W == Angular velocity of rotating frame (parallel to rotation axis), V == Velocity vector of pendulum's bob , W x V == cross product of W and V (is a vector perpendicular to the plane defined by W and V). My contribution to this old discussion is the following: Assume a body orbiting in elliptical orbit, around an other one, can be seen as a Foucault's pendulum. We can observe how that orbit exhibits a periapsis precession with respect to the fixed stars, so its plane of swing can't be regarded as fixed relative to that background of stars. Anyway, if we still think there must exist a Coriolis acceleration as cause of that precession, we must assume that orbiting body is rotating about a inertial reference frame, other than that of fixed stars, such that the plane of swing can be seen as fixed in that frame. So, if we can observe that precession, we are compelled to assume there must be a third body (or a third gravitational system) involved in that precession effect. In my opinion, a Coriolis effect is a sort of hierarchy effect, resulted on how gravitational interactions are nested or subordinated, ones with respect to others (The Earth orbits around the center of solar system, solar system orbits around the center of Milky Way, Milky Way orbits around the center of Local Group, and so on ..). A Coriolis acceleration is then a sum vector of all those hierarchy contributions. In this sense, a Foucault's pendulum, released on Earth surface, is able not only of exhibiting a precession due to Earth rotation, but to solar system rotation and Milky Way rotation, each one nested in its respective parent system. So, the resulted precession is always the sum of all those hierarchy Coriolis effects contributions. a = a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + ... = = 2(W_1 x V_1 + W_2 x V_2 + W_3 x V_3 + ...)  1:43 pm [wallermax] 
Galactic Coriolis effect
Can the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, which General Relativity predicts it is about 43 arc seconds per century, be deduced from a Coriolis effect, assuming solar system undergoes angular velocity around the center of the Milky Way? Some data:  the Sun is about 2/3 the way out from the center of the Milky Way in the disk. Orientation of Solar System: tilted! North Celestial Pole vs. North Galactic Pole, off by 60 degrees  Centripetal acceleration of solar system around the center of the galaxy == cH, where c is speed of light in the vacuum, and H is Hubble constant. Some comments: Milky Way rotates clockwise as seen from North Galactic Pole. Solar system rotates counterclockwise as seen from North Celestial Pole. Assuming a Coriolis effect would hold. For the special orientation of North Celestial Pole vs. North Galactic Pole, a body, moving in solar system, with nonretrograde elliptic orbit, would undergo nonretrograde precession due to that Coriolis effect, but a retrograde orbit would also exhibit that nonretrograde precession (it would be evidenced in a perihelion precession in the opposite direction, that's a delay rather than an advance). General Relativity predicts retrograde precession for retrograde orbit, and nonretrograde precession for nonretrograde orbit (perihelion would always advance).  1:37 pm [wallermax] 
Zerometal Hypothesis (ZMH) as an explanation of Pioneer Anomaly
ZeroMetal Hypothesis (ZMH) purports gravity depends not only on the rest mass of bodies, but on their constituent chemical elements. If a body is a good conductor of electricity, then ZMH predicts it will exhibit a good gravity coupling. Metals would gravitational attract with more force than nonmetals. Why?. A metal exhibits a deslocalized cloud of electrons, and electrons are sources and receivers of gravitons. The more electrical conductivity, the more efficient gravitational coupling would be achieved. Let us suppose probes Pioneer 10 and 11 are composed primarily of quartz, rather than metals, then ZMH predicts there would not be a meaningful Pioneer Anomaly. Let us now pay attention to galactic rotation curves of stars in halos. Those halo stars are younger, in average, than inner ones, and it means they exhibit greater amount of metals in their chemical composition, so they would gravitationally couple better than the inner ones, therefore they would orbit with faster rotations. As long as a young star is far apart of the galactic center, it would rotate faster in average than an old one at the same distance. A ZeroMetal is defined as a perfect electrical insulator, so it would exhibit the minimal gravitational coupling.  1:32 pm [wallermax] 
Analyzing gravity to the extreme
Suppose a velocity vector field V, such that it applies to any particle with mass a pair of velocity vectors, v_1 and v_2, in the same direction, but in opposite points (assumed that particle has spherical volume). That velocity field V acting along time on a particle with mass (and finite volume) would always yield an effective acceleration on that particle. If a particle is massless (pointlike, no volume), then that velocity field could only apply a single velocity on it, not a pair, therefore, there wouldn't be any effective acceleration in this case. Can gravitational fields be explained by means of velocity fields like that described above?.  1:25 pm [wallermax] 
Magical mistery tour towards a black hole
If our observable universe is a black hole, because its density matches critical density, then a smaller black hole in our universe would behave like the whole observable universe, and it would mean the black hole singularity would spread out all over its event horizon, it would never be located in any interior point at all. The weak holographic principle tells us there is not a core within a black hole, but all the information is encoded on its surface, the event horizon. So there aren't particles inside that black hole, only on its surface. We know that an event horizon is a 3sphere which expands. So once we've entered a black hole we remain in its event horizon forever, we do not fall into any pointlike singularity. We do not suffer spaghettification at all. The cost to pay for this magical mystery tour is we will be unable to escape the black hole at any speed lower or equal to speed of light in the vacuum. Furthermore, something has happened to our constituent matter. Our matter is now mirror matter with respect to ordinary matter outside the black hole, although we can't locally realize this change of mirror symmetry. This is the reason why photons can't escape the event horizon of a black hole, there aren't photons, but mirror photons, from the point of view of an outer observer; mirror matter emits only mirror photons, so they only can be detected by mirror matter. An observer outside the black hole can't detect mirror photons. However he can detect mirror gravitons, because a mirror graviton is still a graviton. Anyway, there would be a way an outer observer might detect light emitted by an inner source in a black hole, and it is that observer be inside another nearby black hole, so a mirror photon becomes now an ordinary photon, because that observer is now ordinary matter with respect to the inner source in the other black hole. This issue explains very well the origin of quasars. It is not necessary that both source and observer have to be located in two black holes, but it suffices they were sunk in strong enough nearby gravitational fields, or be far apart close to the event horizon of the observable universe with one of them (source or observer) sunk in a strong gravitational field. A black hole is a spacetime region which exhibits the maximal possible (allowed by Nature) entropy for that region. Therefore, the area of its event horizon is all the space available for evolution and interaction of particles in that black hole. Of course, the more greater the mass of the black hole is, the more available room for particles to evolve and interact. But particles evolve and interact along time. As long as a singularity is forming in finite time, from the point of view of an outer observer, that singularity must spread out on the event horizon in finite time too. Mirror matter is not antimatter, do not confuse them. Mirror matter is what we get after a Psymmetry breaking. Electron and proton are lefthanded, so their counterparts would be mirror electron and mirror proton, which would be righthanded. It is like spacetime would be endowed with two topological sides. Ordinary matter would manifest on one side and its mirror matter on the opposite side (mirror side). Notice that mirror matter and ordinary matter would be now a relative notion. There wouldn't be in Nature any way for knowing whether a material system is, solely by itself, ordinary matter or mirror matter, it would depend on which other material system is compared. Ordinary matter and mirror matter would be then inseparable sides of the same matter. We need at least two material systems to interact for claiming whether they exhibit opposite mirror symmetry. There is no need for duplicating the number of particles, in the universe, when their mirror partners are considered. Actually, a mirror particle is an ordinary particle, but coupling through a curved (or twisted) spacetime interval. Let us see how quantum mechanics can address that coupling: Let us pose two ordinary electrons, A and B, at a distance r, and let A to emit a photon, f, towards B. This event is labelled p_a. Assume A and B are in flat spacetime. That photon f will be absorbed by B after t = r/c seconds. Label that absorption event p_b. Under this scenario, we can assume a mirror photon f' has been emitted from B towards A, such that mirror photon travels from event p_b towards p_a (that's time reversal). This is a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, that mirror photon f' is the same photon f, but regarded from the mirror side. Suppose now both electrons, A and B, are posed outside and inside the event horizon of a black hole, respectively. In that scenario, A behaves as a mirror electron for B, and B as a mirror electron for A. Let A to emit a photon f towards B. That event is p_a. Let B absorbs that photon at time t = r/c. That event is p_b. The problem is that photon is now a mirror photon for B, so it can't be absorbed at event p_b. If a photon is not absorbed, a mirror photon can't be emitted in time reversal. Both electrons are disconneted for an electromagnetic interaction, in this scenario. The same result is achieved if A is posed inside the black hole and B outside. We can't claim whether a system is ordinary matter or mirror matter without letting it to interact with another system. An electron may be detected when it and a measurement instrument interact via electromagnetic, or gravitational interaction. Once it has been measured, we can claim whether it is lefthanded or not. A righthanded electron is dubbed a mirror electron, and it is hard to be detected, as it only interact with ordinary matter via gravitational interaction. However, if electron and observer are in locations which exhibit relative strong spacetime curvature, then that mirror electron can exhibit ordinary projections for that observer, such that he could observe "ordinary" photons coming from that electron, although those "ordinary" photons might be pretty redshifted. We can't claim whether an electron is lefthanded or righthanded if we measure it solely via gravitational interaction, because gravitational interaction is preserved after a mirror symmetry transformation, it is saying that a mirror graviton is still a graviton. To support this idea we need universal upper and lower bounds for photonic frequencies. Call f_0 the lower bound, and f_h the upper one, such that they are positive real numbers, f_0< [ Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<f_h.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] If our observable universe is a black hole, because its density matches critical density, then a smaller black hole in our universe would behave like the whole observable universe, and it would mean the black hole singularity would spread out all over its event horizon, it would never be located in any interior point at all. The weak holographic principle tells us there is not a core within a black hole, but all the information is encoded on its surface, the event horizon. So there aren't particles inside that black hole, only on its surface. We know that an event horizon is a 3sphere which expands. So once we've entered a black hole we remain in its event horizon forever, we do not fall into any pointlike singularity. We do not suffer spaghettification at all. The cost to pay for this magical mystery tour is we will be unable to escape the black hole at any speed lower or equal to speed of light in the vacuum. Furthermore, something has happened to our constituent matter. Our matter is now mirror matter with respect to ordinary matter outside the black hole, although we can't locally realize this change of mirror symmetry. This is the reason why photons can't escape the event horizon of a black hole, there aren't photons, but mirror photons, from the point of view of an outer observer; mirror matter emits only mirror photons, so they only can be detected by mirror matter. An observer outside the black hole can't detect mirror photons. However he can detect mirror gravitons, because a mirror graviton is still a graviton.
Anyway, there would be a way an outer observer might detect light emitted by an inner source in a black hole, and it is that observer be inside another nearby black hole, so a mirror photon becomes now an ordinary photon, because that observer is now ordinary matter with respect to the inner source in the other black hole. This issue explains very well the origin of quasars. It is not necessary that both source and observer have to be located in two black holes, but it suffices they were sunk in strong enough nearby gravitational fields, or be far apart close to the event horizon of the observable universe with one of them (source or observer) sunk in a strong gravitational field.
A black hole is a spacetime region which exhibits the maximal possible (allowed by Nature) entropy for that region. Therefore, the area of its event horizon is all the space available for evolution and interaction of particles in that black hole. Of course, the more greater the mass of the black hole is, the more available room for particles to evolve and interact. But particles evolve and interact along time. As long as a singularity is forming in finite time, from the point of view of an outer observer, that singularity must spread out on the event horizon in finite time too.
Mirror matter is not antimatter, do not confuse them. Mirror matter is what we get after a Psymmetry breaking. Electron and proton are lefthanded, so their counterparts would be mirror electron and mirror proton, which would be righthanded. It is like spacetime would be endowed with two topological sides. Ordinary matter would manifest on one side and its mirror matter on the opposite side (mirror side). Notice that mirror matter and ordinary matter would be now a relative notion. There wouldn't be in Nature any way for knowing whether a material system is, solely by itself, ordinary matter or mirror matter, it would depend on which other material system is compared. Ordinary matter and mirror matter would be then inseparable sides of the same matter. We need at least two material systems to interact for claiming whether they exhibit opposite mirror symmetry.
There is no need for duplicating the number of particles, in the universe, when their mirror partners are considered. Actually, a mirror particle is an ordinary particle, but coupling through a curved (or twisted) spacetime interval.
Let us see how quantum mechanics can address that coupling: Let us pose two ordinary electrons, A and B, at a distance r, and let A to emit a photon, f, towards B. This event is labelled p_a. Assume A and B are in flat spacetime. That photon f will be absorbed by B after t = r/c seconds. Label that absorption event p_b. Under this scenario, we can assume a mirror photon f' has been emitted from B towards A, such that mirror photon travels from event p_b towards p_a (that's time reversal). This is a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, that mirror photon f' is the same photon f, but regarded from the mirror side.
Suppose now both electrons, A and B, are posed outside and inside the event horizon of a black hole, respectively. In that scenario, A behaves as a mirror electron for B, and B as a mirror electron for A. Let A to emit a photon f towards B. That event is p_a. Let B absorbs that photon at time t = r/c. That event is p_b. The problem is that photon is now a mirror photon for B, so it can't be absorbed at event p_b. If a photon is not absorbed, a mirror photon can't be emitted in time reversal. Both electrons are disconneted for an electromagnetic interaction, in this scenario. The same result is achieved if A is posed inside the black hole and B outside.
We can't claim whether a system is ordinary matter or mirror matter without letting it to interact with another system. An electron may be detected when it and a measurement instrument interact via electromagnetic, or gravitational interaction. Once it has been measured, we can claim whether it is lefthanded or not. A righthanded electron is dubbed a mirror electron, and it is hard to be detected, as it only interact with ordinary matter via gravitational interaction. However, if electron and observer are in locations which exhibit relative strong spacetime curvature, then that mirror electron can exhibit ordinary projections for that observer, such that he could observe "ordinary" photons coming from that electron, although those "ordinary" photons might be pretty redshifted. We can't claim whether an electron is lefthanded or righthanded if we measure it solely via gravitational interaction, because gravitational interaction is preserved after a mirror symmetry transformation, it is saying that a mirror graviton is still a graviton.
To support this idea we need universal upper and lower bounds for photonic frequencies. Call f_0 the lower bound, and f_h the upper one, such that they are positive real numbers, f_0<<f_h. A mirror photon would be endowed with a negative frequency f'< 0. So, if we want to detect a mirror photon frequency, we have to pose source and observer within a curved (twisted) spacetime interval. We get a phase (angle) alpha, such that the observed frequency f' is related to the frequency f in the source by:
f'/f = cos(alpha/2)
That spacetime interval may be curved (twisted) in such a manner that it could exhibit a phase alpha > pi or alpha < pi, yielding then f'<0, which would be interpreted as pertaining to a mirror photon.
Now let us see how lower and upper bounds, f_0 and f_h, would work to compute a phase alpha. Assume an initial flat spacetime interval, and let it increases with negative curvature, such that we get more and more redshifted frequencies. We could measure a redshifted frequency f'=f_0, but that spacetime interval still is increasing its curvature, so what do we have beyond f_0?. Beyond f_0 we have a mirror photon f'<0, a frequency which can't be measured. We see now that f_0 is the pi radians limit for phase alpha. Assume now that spacetime interval is being curved in the opposite direction, such that
we observe a more and more blueshifted photon, the upper limit would be achieved for f'=f_h, which is a limit when alpha = pi. Beyond this limit we get a mirror photon, as f'< 0.
If we can consider spacetime regions where mirror symmetry yields mirror matter, then our spacetime is topologically nonorientable. Gravitational fields could twist spacetime intervals like Mobius trips, giving rise to mirror matter, it is saying portions of ordinary matter which have passed through mirror symmetry.  1:15 pm [wallermax] 
Homotopic proposal:extended lorentz transformation
The wellknown lorentz factor (gamma) of a lorentz tranformation: gamma = 1 /(1  v^2/c^2)^(1/2) is intrinsically defined within a minkowskian spacetime. But, we know a minkowski manifold, like that used in special relativity, often leads to bizarre interpretations. For instance, minkowski spacetime is a compact manifold, so we can consider closed timelike curves in it. But, those closed timelike curves violate causality (future events affecting past events), and that's, rather than bizarre, seems to be a fateful flaw. If we work on this spacetime manifold, we need to carefully restrict it, in order to avoid those inconsistencies. We are compelled, in that scenario, to use extraneous ad hoc constraints, which do not belong to its extrict topology. Most of us perceive the intuition that lorentz tranformations may be incomplete, that they may lack something, and we still can't see what exactly it could be. But, I have an idea, I think they lack something I call "cosmological connexion", something connecting the microcosmos and the macrocosmos, and this connexion only can be one thing, the Hubble radius, R_h, the radius of our observable universe!. The extended lorentz tranformation will deal then with the following extended lorentz factor, gamma_e: gamma_e = ( (1 + d^2/R_h^2) /(1  v^2/c^2) )^(1/2) where d is the spacelike distance between two events. Notice that for negligible values of d with respect to R_h, it yields gamma_e = gamma, the standard one. A simple survey shows that gamma_e includes the uncertainty principle. If we want now to compute a boost between two events, we need to know not only the speed v, but the distance d too, so the result of a computation will be affected by uncertainty. Is it an unexpected connexion between special relativity and quantum mechanics? I call this gamm_e the "cosmological connexion", because for a remote static inertial source, like a galaxy, we can consider v=0, and then we get: gamma_e = (1 + d^2/R_h^2)^(1/2), it is saying that the distance d can contribute alone to a boost. And a redshift z can then be expressed by: z = gamm_e  1 = (1 + d^2/R_h^2)^(1/2)  1 So the larger redshift z for an inertial static source would be achieved at d = R_h, yielding: z = 2^(1/2)  1 = 0.4142... **If we want z accounting for non inertial sources, or inertial ones with non zero speed, we must use the complete case: z = gamma_e  1 = ( (1 + d^2/R_h^2) /(1  v^2/c^2) )^(1/2)  1 but, then the uncertainty principle plays here its most serious role, as it obviously must be. **If we want to compute the distance d of a remote static inertial source (v=0), we only have to use: d = R_h((z + 1)^2  1)^(1/2) **if we prefer to use the Hubble constant H_0, instead of R_h, then, as we know that H_0 = c / R_h, it yields: d = (c / H_0)((z + 1)^2  1)^(1/2) _**If we are curious about what it may have happened to the famous Hubble's law, we just have to express the above equation in this way: c((z + 1)^2  1)^(1/2)= H_0d And we see that the left term is equivalent to the famous recession speed v_r, looking like a parameter increasing linearly to the distance d: v_r = H_0d, but it is a new function of z: v_r = c((z + 1)^2  1)^(1/2) and if we compare this v_r with the standard one, v_sr, which is interpreted as a relativistic doppler shift caused by a real kinematical recession speed: v_sr = c((z + 1)^2  1)/((z + 1)^2 + 1) then we get the relationship of the discrepancy: v_r^2 = v_sr((z + 1)^2 + 1)c Are you wondering where this gamma_e comes from?. It is not a fanciful invented equation, coming from nothing, rather it can be deduced from a special spacetime topology, where causality is always preserved. We can construct this spacetime by means of a homotopy, starting at a minkowski spacetime. The homotopic function will consist of curving the minkowski spacetime into a 3sphere of radis R_h, Hubble radius, centered in (0,0,0,0), our hypothetical Big Bang origin, and keeping the time axis invariant in that origin, except the other ones which will be now radii of that 3sphere. This transformation defines a reference event, A, in the point (R_h,0,0,0). Once we are done with this homotopy, we see that the lightcones of the minkowskian manifold have been transformed too. The lightcone representing causal past events with respect to the event A at (R_h,0,0,0), is now a 3sphere of radius R_h/2, centered in (R_h/2,0,0,0). And the lightcone representing future events, is now a 3D euclidean manifold, tangent to the 3sphere of radius R_h in (R_h,0,0,0). The interesting issue, in this homotopic tramsformation, is that the light emitted from an event is forced to propagate tangemtial to the 3sphere in that sourceevent. So, as each event in that 3sphere has its proper time axis radiating from (0,0,0,0), what we get is a relative expansion of the 3sphere, and a photon will intersect the time axis in a future event, and that, of course, can only be done by means of a relative expasion. An example of interaction in this topology would be like this: Two material systems S_a and S_b, a spacelike distance d apart, are in their respective current states A and B, so these events must be located in an initial 3sphere with radius R_h. We say that, from the proper time of S_b, the event A of S_a is regarded as a past event, but symmetrically, the event B of S_b, from the proper time of S_a, is regarded as a past event too. This relative shift of the presents forbids any photon to reach A from B, or B from A. A photon emitted from B to S_a will reach S_a in a future event A', and a photon emitted from A towards S_b will be received in the future event B', not in B. So, we see a relative expansion of the initial 3sphere. Let phi_ab be the angle between S_a and S_b time axes, then it is easy to see that the distance d, travelled by the photon from B to A' is: (this diagram may help http://perso.wanadoo.es/mathemas/ab.gif) d = R_h tan(psi_ab), so cos(psi_ab) = 1 / (1 + d^2/R_h^2)^(1/2) And fron this we can obtain a gamma_e, as we know gamma_e = 1 /cos(psi_ab), in the case the relative speed v=0 for inertial systems S_a and S_b: gamma_e = (1 + d^2/R_h^2)^(1/2) And if S_a and S_b exhibit a non zero relative speed  v  > 0, we obtain the complete case: gamma_e = ( (1 + d^2/R_h^2) /(1  v^2/c^2) )^(1/2) The remarkable issue, in this topological model, is that the initial spacelike distance, d, between two inertial static systems, S_a and S_b, and the final one, d', after a relative expansion in any time t, must match (d' = d). Finally, I propose a tiny Gedankenexperiment, presented like an assertion: "A reflected photon off two parallel mirrors, a distance d apart, will exhibit, after n reflections, a frequency redshift equals to the freqnency redshift of an equivalent photon emitted by a static inertial source at a distance d' = (n +1)d ". maybe this diagram helps: http://perso.wanadoo.es/mathemas/mirrors.gif  12:32 pm [wallermax] 
Some articles that a serious moderated physics forum would reject
The socalled finestructure constant , a, is a dimensionless constant relating the elementary electric charge, e, with Planck charge, Qp, in this way: a = ( e /Qp) ^2, that yields a value about: a = 1/ 137.03599911. This is what we knew so far. Now, let Rh be the Hubble radius, it is saying the radius of our observable universe, and let Lp be Planck length. Then, a misterious relationship appears: a = 1 / ln(Rh / Lp) N = Rh / Lp, is Hubble radius in units on Planck length. Its value is about: N = 1.2 e+62 So,  Do you think this misterious relationship is only a mere coincidence?  Do you know why the finestructure constant seems to match the inverse of the natural logarithm of N? Read my papers: http://perso.wanadoo.es/mathemas/TGC/ngravitation/symmetries/ Current Mood: cheerful 
