I don't understand what you mean by this - can you explain?
A particle falls into a black hole. The further in it falls the more it accelerates until it becomes wave-like as shown by Shroedinger. Space shrinks and time dilates. (or, if you prefer the other way around. It makes no difference. One or the other approaches certainty of one while the other approaches the certainty of zero, and which is which is a matter of observational bias.) Or another way to think of it, the probability of position approaches zero (space) and the probability of momentum (gravity and time) approaches one. Or vice versa! Think sine, cosine and the Euler Equation. When, at the boundary, the wave form collapses, the position probability approaches one, because space is very, very small, and there is no other place for it to be, and time is so dilated it could be any when and probably is every when. It is immediately reflected, but because of time dilation what we see from the outside is the slow evaporation of the singularity. Closer in, it is a big bang. Or think thus: As it falls in space contracts and as it leaves space expands. (e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin (x) <=> cos ([Pi/2] - x) +/- i sin ([Pi/2] -x such that x is a quaternion or a four vector with one lateral (imaginary) component. Note that +/- because the particle is also the anti-particle. There is space but no time between the particle and the antiparticle which produces the entanglement, that weird "action at a distance" that so confuses the common sense.
Are you suggesting that the 'virtual particles' of the vacuum are neutrinos and anti-neutrinos?
Well some of them are, certainly. A neutrino presents a cross section of minimum dimension. It is, as I understand (?) just spin, without mass or charge, an oscillation in one dimensions. Charge requires two dimensions, the direction of the electric field and the direction of the magnetic field while gravity requires three spatial and one time dimension. Think Minkowski or quaternions. The Clifford algebras differ only in whether i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = 1 or -1.
If so, please provide a reference or link.
It is not a single link, more like, a quantumly entangled everything. It is Clifford algebras, Taylor series, tensors of order "n", quaternions, octonions, general relativity and quantum mechanics.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you obviously don't understand quantum mechanics."
... the interaction cross-section for neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation is so small as to be negligible and would require high energy neutrinos.
Maybe so many high energy neutrinos in the foam that we perceive "dark energy" and "dark matter"? The space-time cross-section is to small to detect any individual event, and we can detect nothing but know that it must be there. Each event presents the minimum space-time cross section, with the neutrinos being at the required maximum energy. The neutrino is the minimum cross-section of the entire universe, which at the boundary of the singularity is indeterminate in space and time. The neutrino is the universe falling in and the anti-neutrino being ejected, or vice versa. The math would seem to work either way. (But as I said, I am still working on it , and I am no Einstein. And I do a lot more thinking than scribbling.)
If you want to scribble I would be happy to look at the results, but please remember that "real" numbers may just be a dot product, the result of multiplying a complex number with its conjugate, the magnitude of a quaternion, or the determinant of a matrix. I get very confused because the trail leads off in all directions at once. Of course in the end, no matter which path one takes you end up approaching your starting point from a different direction.
(Dirac-shun?
)
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
, ...
Links? Citations?
Maybe I am thinking thoughts no one ever thought before!
Or maybe not.