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: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Like, how do we get from red shifting of objects in space

There's quite a bit more to it than that.
The CMB, for example.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Don't be pathetic, you were passing speculation of as fact and when I finally ask you to back up your claims the first thing you post actually proves you wrong.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

I was hardware, strictly, but also in systems development, (ICE) in circuit emulators, as an engineering technician.

The programs run on hardware, more helpful to understand that when comparing the Universe to computer 'simulations'.


Oh, I think I disagree with that. Software and hardware are both equally useful. The rendering engine would be software, even if it's hardware accelerated. The algorithms used in quantum computers are software, and they are extremely interesting for analyzing superposition via the use of non-local hidden variables. If you don't understand those simple algorithms, you don't really understand quantum computing.

But what is this, some sort of work experience pissing contest? I'm confident I can hold my own in that regard. Instead, I'd prefer to focus on the actual hardware/software model of the universe and where you find it lacking, or why you find it completely unhelpful. If you would actually counter some of the arguments made by physicists, it would be helpful.

Comparing our resumes isn't really helping anyone.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

I was replying to a post about particles before inflation. That would seem to be a reference to the theory. I pointed out that the theory actually says that there were no particles before inflation.

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Or not, depending on how you look at it. Do photons become entangled?


Phage, a photon is a particle. Do you deny this?




I pointed out that the theory actually says that there were no particles before inflation.


And I pointed out it doesn't. This is backed up by your own pic. It shows that photons existed prior to inflation. Photons are particles.
edit on 25-9-2016 by VanDenEviL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

It is also a wave. It is quite a different thing from an electron.

To get back to the post I was replying to, can a photon be entangled?

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

Don't be pathetic, you were passing speculation of as fact and when I finally ask you to back up your claims the first thing you post actually proves you wrong.



Don't be arrogant, smug, self-righteous and up yourself.

The people in this thread have been very reasonable considering your IN YOUR FACE attitude, wouldn't being civil get your point across more?

I've been wanting to join into this thread for a while now, but the arrogance of it is astounding, and this is one of the main subjects I have a proper expertise in.

It is about debate in science, pooling together to find many theories and facts and joining together to piece puzzles together, not bickering and being arrogant with an attitude problem.

Maybe another time.
edit on 25-9-2016 by MuonToGluon because: SP



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




It is also a wave.


Also.

So you admit a photon is a particle and therefore must admit that particles existed prior to inflation.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

Great, more drivel not proving me wrong in any way, by some nobody.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL




So you admit a photon is a particle and therefore must admit that particles existed prior to inflation.

I "admit" it? Ok, a photon is both a particle and a wave.

Ok, photons existed before inflation.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage




It is also a wave.


Also.

So you admit a photon is a particle and therefore must admit that particles existed prior to inflation.


A photon may or may not be a "ball of stuff" that most people think of when they think of the word "particle".

Photons (and electrons, for that matter, but in a different way) are weirder than that, and can't easily be defined as a simple "something". Why do photons appear to somehow be on two places at once, or somehow know of the characteristics of a photon that was emitted before it (such as in the double-slit experiment)? That may be because they are not really particles, in the normal sense of the word, but something else entirely.

They're not a particle, not a wave. They can exhibit aspects of both a particle and a wave, so science uses "particle" or "wave" as analogies when trying to do math regarding them, but photons are actually neither a particle nor a wave.


edit on 2016/9/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Good, and one more thing Phage, since you don't seem to know, wave/particle duality is not restricted to photons, but goes for electrons too and sub-atomic particles in general.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

Sort of. But different.
None of them are electromagnetic radiation. They don't self-propagate at the speed of light. Do they?

But to try to get back to the topic. Can photons be entangled?

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I'm not really following this side argument all that closely, so please forgive me if what I'm about to say is completely irrelevant. If it is, just pretend I never said it. :-)

I just want to point out that all elementary particles exhibit particle-wave duality. This includes electrons.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




They're not a particle, not a wave. They can exhibit aspects of both a particle and a wave, so science uses "particle" or "wave" as analogies when trying to do math regarding them, but photons are actually neither a particle nor a wave.


I am pretty sure that a particle is, in fact a particle.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Sort of.


No Phage, not sort of. Exactly what I said of.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

Yes. Sub atomic particles can be described as both particles and waves.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Answered my own question.
www.extremetech.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Science uses the word holographic or simulated universe allot these days , but I wonder what's the difference between our primitive computer simulation versus a highly advanced simulation.

And if life and the universe is just a big advanced simulation then someday we could be creating a star system ourself .

Maybe advanced alien lifeforms are creating their own star using the Dyson sphere to create a star .
Like a advanced 3d printer printing a star

Because every action = reaction creating new stuff
Just a wild idea..



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Box of Rain




They're not a particle, not a wave. They can exhibit aspects of both a particle and a wave, so science uses "particle" or "wave" as analogies when trying to do math regarding them, but photons are actually neither a particle nor a wave.


I am pretty sure that a particle is, in fact a particle.

Sure, but I was talking about photons, which SOMETIMES acts like a particle, and SOMETIMES acts as like a wave, but seems to be neither a particle nor a wave. Instead it probably something else entirely.


edit on 2016/9/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join