It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
I was speaking from a hardware perspective when I said space isn't empty, therefore not 'simulated'.

Are you saying that "simulated space" would have to be empty? That doesn't make any sense. Nothing in our universe is truly empty.



A simulation running on a computer is invisible to the real world, it only exists in active memory.

What point are you trying to prove here? The real world, in this context, would exist outside of our time and space. Given the simulation hypothesis, we would be INSIDE the computer.



You said they successfully run universe simulations in supercomputers,

No I didn't.



what I see when I look at that is a room full of big boxes, humming with the sound of cooling fans.

How is the programmer's perspective of the simulation from OUTSIDE relevant? Please explain.


edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: VanDenEviL


The way I understood it is that the single particle goes through both slits(when not observed) and interferes with itself causing an interference(wave) pattern.

The double slit experiment doesn't prove photons behave as both particles and waves but that photons perturb the ether through which they pass and the wave they produce in the surrounding ether is what passes through the slits, making the interference patterns on the collector.

They can't generate single photons anyway, and can't fire them in a single stream, each photon emits in a slightly different direction.



Yes, they can generate single photons and have been able to for quite some time: physicsworld.com...

Of course they do fire in slightly different directions. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any reason to measure which slit they went through.

Yes, those INDIVIDUAL photons exhibit wave-like properties when not observed. Your claims about an "ether" are unproven, and it certainly doesn't explain how the particles STOP "perturbing the ether" when observed.

It is definitely NOT a "wave of photons." It is a WAVE OF PROBABILITIES.

I am reminded of Richard Feynman's famous quote: "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics."

You might want to spend some more time researching, until it becomes clearer to you how and why you don't understand it.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Double
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




A minor correction. It doesn't matter whether the slits are observed, only whether it is possible for an observer TO KNOW the "which path" information.


True, availability of which path info is what matters, I simplified a bit.




Also, we don't really know that the particle "goes through both slits" when not observed, since we cannot observe it doing so. We only know that the interference pattern produced resembles two waves, one propagating through each slit.


Right, so wouldn´t that mean it goes through both slits?




My personal opinion is that the photon might not even exist until the moment it is observed.


Yeah, for instance, the results of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser seem to suggest that the end result on the detector screen only "materialises" at the moment the which path info is checked, or available.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL


Right, so wouldn´t that mean it goes through both slits?

It's impossible to say what it means. Quantum mechanics skips the question altogether and reduces everything to the "wave function." The wave function passes through both slits. The problem is, the wave function is "black box." Bohr argued it would ALWAYS be black box.




Yeah, for instance, the results of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser seem to suggest that the end result on the detector screen only "materialises" at the moment the which path info is checked, or available.

It's even stranger than that. Because the detection of "which path" information isn't made until AFTER the photon hits the screen, it would seem that one of two things is happening:

1) The path of the photon is predetermined, so the photon "knows" whether "which path" information will be obtainable before it is ever fired. This would match Einstein's concept of a "block universe."
2) The fact that "which path" information is knowable somehow travels back in time to the entangled pair.

Both are highly odd.


Both are far more easily explained via an information/computer model of the universe.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Are you saying that "simulated space" would have to be empty? That doesn't make any sense. Nothing in our universe is truly empty.


Yah, we already agreed space isn't empty. So how does that mean reality (the tiny whizzing bits) is simulated, again?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


What point are you trying to prove here? The real world, in this context, would exist outside of our time and space. Given the simulation hypothesis, we would be INSIDE the computer.

What "computer"? The real world does exist outside our 3D respective. But explaining that sometimes is like trying to explain 'up' to 2D Flatlanders.

3D denizens don't understand everywhere and everywhen at once. Even the word everywhen is flagged by spell check.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


The problem is, the wave function is "black box." Bohr argued it would ALWAYS be black box.

Thats easy. Its impossible to control the numbers of photons, make a single stream of them or aim them at exactly the same spot. Considering the constant of C is also variable, this makes analysis of the single photon as wave and particle impossible. We simply cannot resolve down to the size of individual photons, nor construct a 'gun' that fires them individually or in a single stream (like a machine gun).

Thats why he said it will always be a black box.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Are you saying that "simulated space" would have to be empty?

Simulated space doesn't exist as a real volume in a computer program. This is where hardware and the understanding of it in terms of memory, the storage of positive and negative charge that equal 1's and 0's in a computer chip come in. Called binary, streaming in the form of incrementing pointers and counters in registers, the computer has no knowledge of what its doing nor does the 'program' create anything but storage of the charges in vast arrays that the pointers and counters access and shuffle about.

In other words, its a room full of big boxes humming with the sound of cooling fans, not some 'real space'. How many times you need to hear that?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Yes, those INDIVIDUAL photons exhibit wave-like properties when not observed.

Thats one of the biggest mind melds that science currently has going.


Of course they do fire in slightly different directions.

Whoops, conversation over.

Also consider even under controlled conditions the space the photons move through is not completely empty of other energetic particles that also move at the speed of light?

What about the variable speed of light, producing photons at slightly faster and slower speeds that also interfere with the 'stream' of single photons?

Like I also said , its impossible to verify the number of photons that they shoot, we can't resolve them to verify, they're too tiny.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers


Are you saying that "simulated space" would have to be empty? That doesn't make any sense. Nothing in our universe is truly empty.


Yah, we already agreed space isn't empty. So how does that mean reality (the tiny whizzing bits) is simulated, again?



Why don't you explain to me why you think it's even remotely relevant. I can't read your mind, and it is absolutely not intuitive.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   


Whoops, conversation over.


This is a promise I hope you keep, at least until you familiarize further with the subject matter.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers


Are you saying that "simulated space" would have to be empty?

Simulated space doesn't exist as a real volume in a computer program. This is where hardware and the understanding of it in terms of memory, the storage of positive and negative charge that equal 1's and 0's in a computer chip come in. Called binary, streaming in the form of incrementing pointers and counters in registers, the computer has no knowledge of what its doing nor does the 'program' create anything but storage of the charges in vast arrays that the pointers and counters access and shuffle about.

In other words, its a room full of big boxes humming with the sound of cooling fans, not some 'real space'. How many times you need to hear that?


This is where your knowledge of software is sorely lacking. No one said we were living on a hard disk. What we perceive as reality would be CONTROLLED by software. The SIMULATION is software.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Thats easy. Its impossible to control the numbers of photons, make a single stream of them

You're wrong.



or aim them at exactly the same spot. Considering the constant of C is also variable, this makes analysis of the single photon as wave and particle impossible. We simply cannot resolve down to the size of individual photons, nor construct a 'gun' that fires them individually or in a single stream (like a machine gun).

Thats why he said it will always be a black box.


No, according to Bohr, it is purely random and probabilistic by nature, not because we have a measurement problem. It actually has nothing to do with measurement.

Listen, you need to educate yourself about this before we can go any further. I can give you sources to study, but I won't bother going through the trouble unless you're actually going to study them.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Now you're just playing the dumb card. I asked you to tell me how you think reality is nothing but a vast simulation?

Instead of throwing my question back at me, try answering it on any real level that doesn't resort to theories. Computers don't run on theory. They crash...



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Edit:

No one said we were living on a hard disk. What we perceive as reality would be CONTROLLED by software. The SIMULATION is software.

Thats your bias. Reality is hardware, not software.

How are stars and galaxies, by any definition, 'soft'? Gravity, soft?
edit on 26-9-2016 by intrptr because: edit: sorry left out quote



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

Now you're just playing the dumb card. I asked you to tell me how you think reality is nothing but a vast simulation?

Instead of throwing my question back at me, try answering it on any real level that doesn't resort to theories. Computers don't run on theory. They crash...


First of all, I never said reality is a vast simulation. I clearly said the concept was UNFALSIFIABLE.

Secondly, I have said that a computer model of the universe is interesting as a way of considering certain non-intuitive empirical observations, and that is has helped scientists consider various experiments.

Thirdly, a couple of pages ago I proposed a hypothetical 3 tier architecture that would explain some of the strangeness.

What more do you want from me?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


No, according to Bohr, it is purely random and probabilistic by nature, not because we have a measurement problem. It actually has nothing to do with measurement.

But you base this conclusion on whether we observe them or not?

Tilt, again.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers



Thats your bias. Reality is hardware, not software.

How are stars and galaxies, by any definition, 'soft'? Gravity, soft?


Instructions are SOFTWARE. the rules of physics are INSTRUCTIONS.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


First of all, I never said reality is a vast simulation.

Oh good. So we agree.

Last response.







 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join