Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

originally posted by: 0bserver1
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.

As I said back on page 3, a holographic universe is not necessarily a simulation.

The common versions of the scientific hypothesis of the Holographic Universe does NOT say that the universe is some artificially-made holographic projector designed by someone/something to make us think we are in a real physical universe, but instead is simply the way the universe may work. The hypothesis says that the holographic universe itself is the real physical universe.

The idea of the Holographic universe states that our universe of seemingly 3D space (3 spatial dimensions) might actually be 2D information projected to appear 3D. However, there is not necessarily "alien" or "entity" running the projection, just nature.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Are you denying the existence of single particles, like a single photon in a particle state?

Inasmuch as it is possible, I will attempt to clear up some of the confusion about particle-wave duality.

Elementary particles all exhibit "wave-like characteristics." That does NOT mean they are a wave.

Earlier, someone described it as a "wave of particles." That is flat out incorrect, as even when particles are fired one at a time, they exhibit these wave-like characteristics. It's not a "wave of particles," it is in fact a WAVE OF PROBABILITIES.

The terminology can be confusing. The particle is sometimes said to be in a state of superposition of all possible states simultaneously (but only before it is measured), and this continuum is referred to as the particle's "wave function." Quantum mechanics is all about the wave function.

Things to keep in mind:

A particle is still a particle. The "wave" does not describe the particle itself, but rather the entire range of statistical likelihoods that it will be in a certain state when measured. They are far more useful for determining the behavior of particles in aggregate than of forecasting the behavior any individual measurement.

Another point: A particle has never been observed being "a wave." Like I said, observation collapses the wave function.

This is one of the reasons why the computer model makes intuitive sense to me, and I am certainly not the first person to notice the connection. To be clear, that doesn't mean we live in a computer. (The concept is still unfalsifiable). It just means it is an interesting lens through which to consider reality, and has in fact led some scientists to construct experiments around the idea.

And by the way, it's not just elementary particles that exhibit particle-wave duality.

This has been demonstrated with 60 atom molecules: www.nature.com...

Spend some time mulling that one over.

Photons have zero rest mass and as far as I know that means they have no potential energy which is kind of weird.

Hypothetically speaking if a photon and an anti-photon were to collide any release of energy would by no different than if a photon collided with another photon or visa-versa.

Because there is no rest mass that we can observe.

To be clear Quantum Entanglement: its implication suggests to me that all matter within observation and conceivably beyond is indicative of some type of order.

In so far as what that order is? That would involve deductive assertions.

There is a vast difference between the mass of a photon and that of a particle.

Now to go really fringe it is possible that the rest mass of a photon does exist upon some other scale and so beyond our general observation at present.

a reply to: Greggers

I think that you might all find this interesting in your debate:

The particulate nature of the photon is evident in its tendency to be absorbed and emitted by matter in discrete units, leading to quantization of light energy. In the spatial domain, the localization of photons by a photodetector makes it possible to define a ‘wave function’ for the photon, which affords a ‘first-quantized’ view of the electromagnetic field by analogy to the quantum mechanics of material particles. Quantum interference and entanglement are exemplified by one-photon and two-photon wave functions, which facilitate comparisons to (and clarify departures from) classical wave optics. Moreover, this interpretive formalism provides a bridge between the two ancient, antithetical conceptions of light – its locality as a particle, and its functionality as a wave.

The paper is good. "The concept of the photon—revisited", Ashok Muthukrishnan,1 Marlan O. Scully,1,2 and M. Suhail Zubairy1,3

You can find it on page S-18, Optics and Photonics News

Every-time someones brings up entanglement, off I go reading about it, fusing the logic circuits of my brain in the process. But found an interesting read that suggests time to be an emergent property derived from quantum correlations (Wheeler-DeWitt equation). Interestingly Einstein is also quoted as saying "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion".

link

Time from quantum entanglement: an experimental illustration

added... wonder if you could keep groups of entangled particles for years and read one of each set every day, To receive messages sent from the future as a message to buy shares etc in the present.

a reply to: Kashai

I think this is impossible. If the photon has a mass(rest) in another dimension, this would be "entangled" with the photon at some level (if not, then it's not a property of a photon), and we would have issues with loss of gauge invariance which would be "felt" in the study of Quantum Effects. Also, if the photon were to be slowed down enough to test for mass(rest), would it still be a photon? A photon has only one speed that we know , c.

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

Are you denying the existence of single particles, like a single photon in a particle state?

It may only appear to be a particle, but not be.

In the double-slit experiment, even if one photon at a time was shot through the slits (particle-style), the aggregate result of all of the single photons over time appeared as if wave interference was involved. If it was, then what was "waving"?

a reply to: LetsGoViking

Photon
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of all forms of electromagnetic radiation, including light. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The photon has zero rest mass and as a result, the interactions of this force with matter at long distance are observable at the microscopic and at t…

en.wikipedia.org...

All photons move at c.

its not impossible there is simply no way to record such a perspective.


The issue of density then comes to mind. Though in retrospect 186,000 miles per second with an 80+ billion light year universe, could suggest.... That rest mass in relation to photons presents at some scale we are not yet aware of.


The proverbial speed limit portends to a limit indicative of a potential at another scale of rest mass.

a reply to: Kashai

Perhaps I'm just being relatively dense today, but I'm not sure what you were getting at with your reply....

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: LetsGoViking

Photon
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of all forms of electromagnetic radiation, including light. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The photon has zero rest mass and as a result, the interactions of this force with matter at long distance are observable at the microscopic and at t…

en.wikipedia.org...

All photons move at c.

its not impossible there is simply no way to record such a perspective.


The issue of density then comes to mind. Though in retrospect 186,000 miles per second with an 80+ billion light year universe, could suggest.... That rest mass in relation to photons presents at some scale we are not yet aware of.


The proverbial speed limit portends to a limit indicative of a potential at another scale of rest mass.

I wonder how a hypothetical resting photon would react to experiencing the passage of time? As it is, a photon never experiences the passage of time.

To a normal photon that moves at c after being emitted, it "experiences" itself being emitted and then absorbed during the exact same instant, or exact same moment. To the photon, it never existed in time; it's journey from being emitted to being adsorbed would be instantaneous (even if we would say it was 1 Billion years). That is to say, before it could ever exist (immediately upon being emitted), it became no more due to being absorbed.

A resting electron would experience the passage of time, because it would not be moving at c.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

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

Are you denying the existence of single particles, like a single photon in a particle state?

It may only appear to be a particle, but not be.

In the double-slit experiment, even if one photon at a time was shot through the slits (particle-style), the aggregate result of all of the single photons over time appeared as if wave interference was involved. If it was, then what was "waving"?

Niels Bohr, an early revolutionary in quantum mechanics, would claim that what is waving is irrelevant, as it can never be measured. He essentially claimed quantum mechanics was a black box which would never yield its secrets. Again, the similarities with information theory are obvious, as one possible interpretation is that what we call the "wave function" is really just all the places where the particle might be as determined by algorithms running across process boundaries, in some server we can never access.

My own imagination comes up with the following scenario.

Step 1) The conscious observer measures the particle
Step 1a) The conscious observer queries reality, passing in the requested granularity of data and the coordinates
Step 2) Reality queries the calculation engine
Step 3) The calculation engine chooses the particles state based on its hidden algorithm and passes it back up to the rendering engine in planck-length binary
Step 4) The rendering engine records the planck-length binary in session and returns sensory input to the conscious observer.

Just some of my wild imaginings.

a reply to: Box of Rain


Photons moving at c cannot exceed a certain distance in relation to environment and so therefore time is a factor.


in this particular instance that factor is the age of the Universe despite inflation.

Another point to consider.

There are two types of randomness in the universe:

1) Classical randomness
2) Quantum randomness

Classical randomness is sometimes called "randomness by ignorance." For example, is a coin flip truly random? It is classically random, yes. But the reason we cannot know ahead of time whether it will land heads or tails is because it is impossible for us to calculate all the classical forces acting upon it. In theory, if one could calculate all the classical forces, basic physics would tell you whether the coin would land heads up or heads down.

Quantum randomness is something else entirely. It is purely random. The outcome of a measurement could never be calculated beforehand (I'm ignoring entanglement here). The particle has a wave-function (or a weighted list of probable states), and when it is measured, the state will be chosen in a purely random fashion based upon that weighted distribution.

So, if we are living in a simulation, one has to ask: What is the purpose of having true randomness operating on subatomic particles? And not just on subatomic particles, but on any observable below some yet-to-be-determined size threshold?

Perhaps it's the only reliable way for the programmers to test all possible permutations of whatever it is they're trying to measure. This would lend credence to "many worlds," or in this case "many simulations."

a reply to: Box of Rain

Thanks for that distinction people tend to mix simulation with the holographic theory not one in the same

a reply to: Greggers

Quantum chaos is a branch of physics which studies how chaotic classical dynamical systems can be described in terms of quantum theory. The primary question that quantum chaos seeks to answer is: "What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical chaos?" The correspondence principle states that classical mechanics is the classical limit of quantum mechanics. If this is true, then there must be quantum mechanisms underlying classical chaos; although this may not be a fruitful way of examining classical chaos. If quantum mechanics does not demonstrate an exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, how can exponential sensitivity to initial conditions arise in classical chaos, which must be the correspondence principle limit of quantum mechanics? [1][2] In seeking to address the basic question of quantum chaos, several approaches have been employed:

Development of methods for solving quantum problems where the perturbation cannot be considered small in perturbation theory and where quantum numbers are large.

Correlating statistical descriptions of eigenvalues (energy levels) with the classical behavior of the same Hamiltonian (system).

Semi classical methods such as periodic-orbit theory connecting the classical trajectories of the dynamical system with quantum features.

Direct application of the correspondence principle.

The issue of what we today relate to in so far as randomness in quantum mechanics could be an expression of a non-random expression beyond our comprehension.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers

Quantum chaos is a branch of physics which studies how chaotic classical dynamical systems can be described in terms of quantum theory. The primary question that quantum chaos seeks to answer is: "What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical chaos?" The correspondence principle states that classical mechanics is the classical limit of quantum mechanics. If this is true, then there must be quantum mechanisms underlying classical chaos; although this may not be a fruitful way of examining classical chaos. If quantum mechanics does not demonstrate an exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, how can exponential sensitivity to initial conditions arise in classical chaos, which must be the correspondence principle limit of quantum mechanics? [1][2] In seeking to address the basic question of quantum chaos, several approaches have been employed:

Development of methods for solving quantum problems where the perturbation cannot be considered small in perturbation theory and where quantum numbers are large.

Correlating statistical descriptions of eigenvalues (energy levels) with the classical behavior of the same Hamiltonian (system).

Semi classical methods such as periodic-orbit theory connecting the classical trajectories of the dynamical system with quantum features.

Direct application of the correspondence principle.

The issue of what we today relate to in so far as randomness in quantum mechanics could be an expression of a non-random expression beyond our comprehension.

I suppose that goes without saying.

The difference is that pure randomness is actually built into Quantum Theory.

It would take a Grand Unified Theory to replace pure randomness with something else.

originally posted by: Kashai
The issue of what we today relate to in so far as randomness in quantum mechanics could be an expression of a non-random expression beyond our comprehension.

John Stewart Bell (of Bell's Theorem) would say otherwise.

But that doesn't mean that Bell and his theorem are necessarily right.

a reply to: Greggers

To the degree the Big Bang could have just been a Quantum Bubble.

en.wikipedia.org...
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

Something that we actually already know we can replicate.