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: 18
38
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers



The fact that space is, by its very nature, not uniform at the smallest scales has profound implications for the Big Bang. The current leading theory for how space expanded after the Big Bang is Inflation, which basically says that in the early universe, the tiny speck of spacetime that was created in the first instant of the Big Bang stretched out very, very quickly. That tiny speck of space ultimately expanded into our universe, which is still expanding.

Now, the thing is, in the first moments after creation, the space expanded so fast that the normally invisible "quantum ripples" were magnified to the point of creating large-scale differences in temperature and density. These tiny but vital differences can be seen through a radio map of the sky, such as WMAP (which I'll link to in my sources). So it seems that the massive stretching of space, combined with quantum ripples, created the tiny differences in temperature and density that allowed our universe to form the way it is today!


answers.yahoo.com...







Yep. You can see these minute differences in the WMAP picture.

From wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky. However, tiny temperature variations or fluctuations (at the part per million level) can offer great insight into the origin, evolution, and content of the universe
edit on 29-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Those "minute" differences are reflections of conditions in the known Universe that existed when?


edit on 29-9-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
It all makes me wonder, what would be the point of a lifeless universe?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


Those "minute" differences are reflections of conditions in the known Universe that existed when?



The specific differences in question happened about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, which was the surface of the last scattering.

As far as what caused them, one thought is that vacuum fluctuations (which are a real manifestation of quantum mechanics), subjected to the tremendous energies of the Big Bang, might have produced these results.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It all makes me wonder, what would be the point of a lifeless universe?


I've been thinking about that too.

If we go with the premise that we're in a sim, I can think of lots of reasons why a lifeless universe would be worth studying, mostly related to the evolving structure of the universe. Of course, this assumes there is life OUTSIDE the simulation capable of viewing it.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers



According to the cosmological principle, the structure of the universe is uniform at its largest scale and its largest structures are theoretically limited to 1.2 billion light years across. This new discovery pushes that limit nearly five-fold.


www.digitaltrends.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers



According to the cosmological principle, the structure of the universe is uniform at its largest scale and its largest structures are theoretically limited to 1.2 billion light years across. This new discovery pushes that limit nearly five-fold.


www.digitaltrends.com...



Yeah, that's an interesting one. It's caused some debate about whether it should really be considered a single structure because of the large gaps, which boils own to how one defines "structure." I'm sure it's caused more than a few to rethink their models, which of course is how science moves forward.

edit on 30-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It all makes me wonder, what would be the point of a lifeless universe?


Good question and I was watching this documentary on Curiosity Stream about Quantum Biology and it really made some good points that could essentially be related to a question like this.

Take our sense of smell. There's theories now that says it's quantum and that the sense of smell occurs because of vibrations in the bonds. We interpret these vibrations as different smells. So our food is playing music so to speak and just like music everyone has a subjective taste.

When you think about that, it shows food really doesn't have a taste in the way we experience it. This is why you can't taste food when you have a stuffy nose. This is because the brain tells you what pizza tastes like or any other food. So it's a subjective experience. This is why taste can also be tied to memories which can change how food tastes.

I love spaghetti but sometimes I can't stand it and that's because when I was a kid I went swimming and I got really hungry. I came home and ate A LOT of spaghetti. I ate so much I got sick. So every once in awhile the smell of spaghetti triggers that memory and I get the same sick feeling and the spaghetti tastes very bad to me.

So when you think about it, food doesn't have the objective taste that we think it has. Our brain is telling us what food tastes like based on these vibrations. So we all experience these foods differently.

So the point of a lifeless universe is that there's no such thing as a lifeless universe if we're a simulation of information.

This would mean the universe is subjective as well and we experience it differently just like the food. It's an interplay between nature and consciousness as Werner Heisenberg said.

So the entire universe may really exists in a low resolution state and our brains are hard wired to see the universe at a higher resolution. This would do 2 things.

It would save on processing power. This is because there wouldn't be any need for the universe to be in high def so to speak when it isn't being observed.

Secondly, you could have a trillion different observers hard wired to see the same universe at different resolutions. So they would experience the same information differently. This could also be tied to entanglement on a 2D surface which some Physicist are saying might give us things like gravity and extra dimensions.

So when you think about this, places like Pluto or Neptune would be a blur or maybe even at such a low resolution it's almost non existence until we look at it and see it through the eyes of a higher resolution.

It could look something like this when we're not looking at it.


Below is an illustration of how the same image might appear at different pixel resolutions, if the pixels were poorly rendered as sharp squares (normally, a smooth image reconstruction from pixels would be preferred, but for illustration of pixels, the sharp squares make the point better)


en.wikipedia.org...

Here's some pics that show how you can look at the same image but see it differently based on the reconstruction of the image from pixels. The more pixels the better the resolution.



So the brain reconstructs information that's on a 2D surface and consciousness(the mind) experiences this reconstruction. So there's no need to have a lifeless universe because the universe only comes alive so to speak when there's conscious observers looking at it.

So there's no need for the universe to render an image of Pluto or Neptune in the way that we perceive it if we're not looking at it. This is why I said particles should be seen as pixels on a spacetime screen.

When a particle isn't being measured it's in superposition. The wave function contains all the information needed to render the particle when it's observed.
edit on 30-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Interesting.

Relating to your report, the sense of smell is most closely tied to memory. That is, smell triggers stored memories unlike anything else.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
One question I would like to ask everyone because I am interested in your replies and rationale:

If the universe is a simulation, what is the purpose of the simulation?

I think this is about the third time I have answered this question. To experience whatever we choose, whatever we create, and to experience who we really are.

What I mean is, does the nature of this reality (as we know it) yield any clues about what is being tested (if anything)?

Nothing is being tested. Our theology says reality exists as a test. There is no test.

I don't have a good answer myself, but consider the true randomness that QM says exists at the quantum level. Consider the wave function itself. This is far different than the "Randomness by ignorance" that occurs at the classical level.

Why true randomness?

If the purpose of the simulation were merely to give people a realistic experience, it seems that the behavior of fundamental particles could have been far simpler than it is.

Can you please elucidate?

Also, I don't think the purpose is to drive out the true nature of celestial mechanics (such as The Big Bang, or planet formation, or black hole formation, etc.) because those things do not include conscious observers, and would not require the wave-function to collapse.

You know they don't include a conscious observer how?

Earlier I proposed that maybe it was originally a simulation of everything, and conscious observers were jacked into it later. That would explain the whole "Reality as VR space-time grid" thing we've talked about earlier in this thread.

Like I said, I don't have a good answer. But I am interesting in hearing yours.


I have replied to some of your questions.
edit on 3-10-2016 by pacific because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: pacific

originally posted by: Greggers
One question I would like to ask everyone because I am interested in your replies and rationale:

If the universe is a simulation, what is the purpose of the simulation?

I think this is about the third time I have answered this question. To experience whatever we choose, whatever we create, and to experience who we really are.

What I mean is, does the nature of this reality (as we know it) yield any clues about what is being tested (if anything)?

Nothing is being tested. Our theology says reality exists as a test. There is no test.

I don't have a good answer myself, but consider the true randomness that QM says exists at the quantum level. Consider the wave function itself. This is far different than the "Randomness by ignorance" that occurs at the classical level.

Why true randomness?

If the purpose of the simulation were merely to give people a realistic experience, it seems that the behavior of fundamental particles could have been far simpler than it is.

Can you please elucidate?

Also, I don't think the purpose is to drive out the true nature of celestial mechanics (such as The Big Bang, or planet formation, or black hole formation, etc.) because those things do not include conscious observers, and would not require the wave-function to collapse.

You know they don't include a conscious observer how?

Earlier I proposed that maybe it was originally a simulation of everything, and conscious observers were jacked into it later. That would explain the whole "Reality as VR space-time grid" thing we've talked about earlier in this thread.

Like I said, I don't have a good answer. But I am interesting in hearing yours.


I have replied to some of your questions.


Thanks.

Just to be clear, I don't know anything other than what is said by QM or relativity or other scientific models. My post was speculative, like yours.

I was simply trying to say that IF the PURPOSE of the sim was to study the physics of large objects, there is no reason I can think of why it would need a conscious observer, except for OUTSIDE the sim, to view the results. (In much the same way that we use super-computers today to study the physics of large objects).

In fact, I can think of no reason why a conscious observer would be required in the SIM unless the conscious observer was either the subject of the sim (as in, the widely speculated ancestor simulation) or it was a pure VR all about the experience itself, which to me implies that the conscious observer exists outside the sim but is porting himself into it (as in the Matrix). Or, if it was a "simulation of everything," conscious observers might have evolved naturally as part of the sim, in which case we would just be another part of the simulation.

Just spitballing here.

As far as my comment about the behavior of subatomic particles being more complicated that it would need to be for a consciousness simulation, it just seems that true randomness in the form of wave functions is a complicated mechanic when the simulation could have just kept them point sources all the way down.

P.S.

For those of you who feel you've already answered the questions several pages ago and don't feel like repeating yourselves, there is no need to trouble yourself.
edit on 3-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Even if the universe is a simulation our actions within it are still real within the context of the environment we are in. Your actions within a video game are real and have real consequences within the context of that video game. The universe is the same; the consequences are just more complex as the universe is more complex. Everything is subject to the rules of the environment we are in.

Interestingly all this has to pose the question of why?

My personal theory is, and has been for a number of years, is that if we as a species one day conceivably create a universal simulation, mathematically speaking it is then more probable that we are within that simulation, or one of the simulations. The question of why I think is answered by pondering what else that type of civilisation would be able to achieve. I think any species or civilisation that can compute the whole universe has probably also achieved immortality. Therefore, personally, I wouldn't like to spend life with assholes, forever. So I think the simulation is run as a training program, or a way to weed out bad people.

Which in my opinion, aligns with the theories of pretty much every single religion on the planet. That life is a test. That once we pass it we achieve life everlasting, or heaven, and if we mess it up we go to hell, or repeat life (reincarnation) until we get it right and then we go to heaven.

I think it makes spiritual sense as well as scientific and logical sense.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Actually, my life would be pretty simple to simulate. I spend most of my time in front of a computer screen.

lap phong game
mo phong net
linh kien may tinh cu
nhac ngu



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Great stuff, thanks for the read. Will try and read the thread later. Right now, I'ma go see about some electric sheep.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Let's play a game, Let's first assume The universe is a simulation.
Now let's try to explain it.

Impossible right ? it's like our minds are not wired to even "think" like that ...
In the past they called it a dream, now they call it a simulation. but in essence ,both are the same thing really.

What is real ? Assume we don't know how to define real in order to keep playing.
If you cannot entertain the thought that we cannot define reality, it's game ovee&r.

If we don't know how to define what is real, We cannot proceed into discussing reality.
Matter is composed of particles. Yes. In reality as we know it today.

Science - Is part of reality. Or our reality as we know it today.
Science is human interpretation of It's own reality. Ask yourself, How can you explain the dream with science ? You cannot&.

Now we can conclude that any attempt at explaining the dream using any tools from our own reality would be wrong.
If we can't define reality in general, We can't explain it using the very science that relays on our complete understanding of it in order to be true.

Kinda like a psychologist can't diagnose himself - he would be using the same "damaged" tool to uncover the "problem".

In conclusion, If the universe is a simulation, It is indeed a much different reality. you cannot explain a different reality using your own. Period.

It's Magic. For now.

They say any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or better, Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

18 years ago the worlds fastest supercomputer (Which did space stuff) was only around twice (You can check) as fast as your average modern mobile phone today. And it couldn't call people. Nor could it fit into your pocket, Talk to you or guide you to your destination.

Now while you ponder that thought, Imagine computers 2000 years from now.
Try to explain them with our science, I bet we would not be able to With our current resources.



anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years, They also tried to explain... what in essence, is a dream. Reality is a dream.
Today we might be trying to explain the same thing.

I think it's simple. Our science is not strong enough to explain that # yet.











edit on 5-10-2016 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I've always thought that the collapse of the wave function due to observation, reminds me of a kind of procedural generation.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jake27
I've always thought that the collapse of the wave function due to observation, reminds me of a kind of procedural generation.


Good points and whether the wave function collapses or there's just an appearence of collapse makes no difference to the simulation. This is because it's not debating these things in the context of a material reality but as you say procedural instructions that you would find in a program.

So in this case, the wave function is like a server that stores all of the information about the different states a particle can be in when observed. A server stores information about different websites and that information isn't online until that website is accessed. It would make no sense to have every website online at all times even when nobody is looking at it. It would be a waste of processing power. Facebook gets over a billion users per day and an local insurance agency may get 10 users in a day. It wouldn't make sense to have the insurence agency website online all day along with facebook.

This is the way the universe seems to work on a fundamental level of reality. We can measure an observable like spin, momentum or energy but that observable isn't online so to speak until someone looks at it.

Why would the universe behave like a computer simulation if it wasn't a computer simulation?

You have Scientist talking about is the universe a simulation, are black holes 2D holograms and saying the 3rd dimension is an illusion. This is because Physics is bumping up against a cold hard fact. The universe can't be described in the context of a 3D objective material reality but a projection of 2D information.



The reason why people have had so much trouble with Quantum Mechanics is because they're trying to fit particles which are really pixels on a spacetime screen that are following a set of instructions into a classical physical realy that has no objective existence.

Listen to the way Heisenberg talked about this:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
― Werner Heisenberg

“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg


So a race of beings could see our universe in a totally different way if they simply see things in a higher resolution. This would mean our universe is a projection of information and we experience this information at a certain resolution. This is because pixels illuminate the information that makes up the image that's being projected. There could be things all around us that we can't see because we don't have access to the resolution needed to see these images.



So if we don't have the resolution to illuminate information right next to us it would look like the first image in the pic but someone else who sees things in a higher resolution might see the last image.

Here's an interesting article on the resolution of the eye. In the future we may have more control over this resolution. We could see a race of humanoid dinosaurs who live in the same space we live in but this space is in a lower resolution. So there could be a thousand different beings all existing on earth and sharing the same space they just see the projection of information at different resolutions.

www.clarkvision.com...
edit on 8-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Shimi8787


Their have been a few unfortunate human kids, one comes to mind that was kept in a chicken run, another was brought up by monkeys. Their view of the Universe was one as a chicken and one as a monkey would see it.They were not living in the same space as a human, brought up by a human.The initial programing is essential to decode the Universe in an agreement of what reality is.No amount of intervention could change the original chicken/monkey program,



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Another more logical explanation is that entangled particles are born that way, during their creation, and travel the universe with those properties being the same along their travel.

However, no physicist is willing to entertain that concept.

Out of the many phycisists I send this to, one bothered to reply, telling me that it is not possible for that to happen because particles are not born as particles, and therefore their state does not exist before their wave function collapses.

I replied like this: what if the entanglement properties are encoded in the particle's wave function?

I never gotten a reply back.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
Let's hope we never find the source code for this simulation, weird # might start to happen


Hrrrrmmm

Who says some of us don't understand the source code?

If you understood the Math and could play the Music would you share the information on how to change reality? Maybe Magic isn't a Myth?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join