It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 9
38
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:47 PM

I do some programming too, and as chance would have it, graphics and especially VR are a hobby of mine. I just finished a Game Jam this weekend where I built a VR game actually.

Anyways, what you're suggesting isn't a 2d world, it's a 4d world. Dimensions get a little tricky to describe, but I'm going to try.

A 1 dimensional space is a number line. Maybe you had one of these taped in your desk at school. It's a flat plane with values on it. If you copy and rotate this plane around the x axis, you create a y axis. With the addition of the y axis, an infinite amount of data (or more often, 1 piece of data) can be stored for each x value. You can think of the Y's as a grid of x's. If you rotate this entire construct around the y axis, you'll create a z axis which is a grid of x/y grids. Last you get to the 4th dimension. If you rotate around the z axis, you'll create the w axis. This isn't something we can observe, but we can prove it's true. It's basically a grid of 3d coordinate systems, with w aligning the grid in some unknown direction.

Now, why does this matter? It matters because if two grains of sand have different x, y, z coordinates, they could still share a w coordinate where information is being transmitted. To break that down a dimension, go back and make an x/y grid. Place three grains of rice at (2,2), (2,6), and (6,2). If the information being transmitted is to a 1 dimensional system, then the rice at 2,2 and 2,6 both transmit the value of two, despite being in different places.

Why does this matter? Because it means quantum entanglement transmitting the same information in 3d space, means they must be in the same location in some other dimension of space, which implies a 4th, 5th, 6th, or more dimensions.

If anything it argues against the universe actually being a 3d projection from a 2d plane of data like a VR simulation is.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:49 PM

originally posted by: TzarChasm
yup. they nailed it. this is all just a very sad game of sims left on autopilot.

Alternatively, the singularity happened to another society. We are their ideal world. Could they live among us?

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:50 AM

If you look at entangled particles, they only make sense in the context of the language of computation.

well, not absolutely so.

for me it actually makes more sense in the context of conciousness.

cheers

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 04:38 AM
a reply to: Box of Rain

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.

Right, so as we are now using and discover somewhat the same model as the so called holographic space theory states ,doesn't mean it's the same we want to imply as not real .

It also sounds more scary to think we're just a bunch of holograms, I seem to have problems with that idea,because we are so conscious about everything around us..

I hope that they are going to use another kind of name when it's fully accepted by science. .

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:55 AM

The only constrain on the distance it can travel is the possibility of it being absorbed by something else. Otherwise it would travel forever.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: Box of Rain

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.

This not completely correct, there is only an interfernce pattern if the slits were not observed. If the slits were observed, 2 bands appear on the detector screen, showing a pattern caused by particles.

If it was, then what was "waving"?

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

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

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:20 AM

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

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.

This not completely correct, there is only an interfernce pattern if the slits were not observed. If the slits were observed, 2 bands appear on the detector screen, showing a pattern caused by particles.

If it was, then what was "waving"?

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

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.

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the detectors were actually set up so they didn't register until after the particle had hit the screen. They accomplished this with entangled photons. There was no detector between the slit and the screen.

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.

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

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:52 AM
Here's a good short video that explains these things well with Brian Greene and Susskind. They talk about the illusion of the third dimension. This is what I alluded to earlier when I said science can't even show volume has an objective existence. They also talk about everything as information on a 2D surface that projects our 3D world that we perceive as "reality."

I wonder why some people grasping that our universe isn't real in the objective material sense is so hard to take in. When you say the universe is an illusion of information on a 2D surface, you're not saying nothing is real, you're just saying what appears to be real isn't what you thought it was. Here's the definition of illusion:

a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.

This is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. When you say the universe is an illusion and a simulation of information, it's saying the universe you experience isn't reality just a perception of something else.

This is even extending to evolution:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them — whether we are conscious humans or inanimate measuring devices. Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Again, all of this is occuring because science can't show that the world is "real" in a 3D sense. In fact, the opposite conclusion is supported by the evidence. The world we experience is an illusion of information and our percptions as to what's "real."

It's an older video but a very good one.

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

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:53 AM

originally posted by: Greggers

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

Or the photon exists everywhere it can exist until some method of detection acts upon it.

The information carried by the photon is blurred along the the entire path that the photon could possibly exist, and only chooses a discreet place to exist only when detected . In this case, the photon would look like a particle only when interacting with a detector (an eye, a photon detecting machine, a chlorophyll molecule, a solar panel, warming the back of an ant, etc), but was NOT particle-like until that time, but rather blurred across a probability field.

edit on 2016/9/26 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:57 AM

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.

I was speaking from a hardware perspective when I said space isn't empty, therefore not 'simulated'.

A simulation running on a computer is invisible to the real world, it only exists in active memory. You said they successfully run universe simulations in supercomputers, what I see when I look at that is a room full of big boxes, humming with the sound of cooling fans.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:03 AM

originally posted by: glend
A thought provoking subject. The Hindus believe reality is maya, the great illusion that is fortified by limitations of our minds and senses, but if its so, how come our illusion can be expressed mathematically, which seems a bit odd, if it is an illusion. But our current scientific understanding is that aether doesn't exist, yet light is saved by breaking universal speed limits, by time itself (perhaps a screen refresh rate limitation). Even stranger is the oddity that all the forces of nature, are set at precise strengths, that allows life to exists. If gravity was a mite stronger, or the strong nuclear force a mite weaker, stars couldn't form, so no-one could witness reality, in all its grandeur.

So its a head scratcher any way you want to look at it.

If multiverse theory is correct, then the changes of force strengths shouldn't matter. There should be universes where it's stronger and where it's weaker. In which case we're simply lucky enough to be in one which works.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:07 AM

originally posted by: neoholographic
I wonder why some people grasping that our universe isn't real in the objective material sense is so hard to take in. When you say the universe is an illusion of information on a 2D surface, you're not saying nothing is real, you're just saying what appears to be real isn't what you thought it was. Here's the definition of illusion.

But a 3D universe "projected" from 2D information CAN be real. That is to say, why does it need to be an artificial simulation, one possibly being run by some intelligent entity?

If the universe is actually 2D in nature, and that's the way it is and the way it has always been, and the way we natural beings in that universe perceive the nature of that universe -- then why can't it be real? It could simply be the way the universe works.

edit on 2016/9/26 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:09 AM

I do some programming too, and as chance would have it, graphics and especially VR are a hobby of mine. I just finished a Game Jam this weekend where I built a VR game actually.

Anyways, what you're suggesting isn't a 2d world, it's a 4d world. Dimensions get a little tricky to describe, but I'm going to try.

A 1 dimensional space is a number line. Maybe you had one of these taped in your desk at school. It's a flat plane with values on it. If you copy and rotate this plane around the x axis, you create a y axis. With the addition of the y axis, an infinite amount of data (or more often, 1 piece of data) can be stored for each x value. You can think of the Y's as a grid of x's. If you rotate this entire construct around the y axis, you'll create a z axis which is a grid of x/y grids. Last you get to the 4th dimension. If you rotate around the z axis, you'll create the w axis. This isn't something we can observe, but we can prove it's true. It's basically a grid of 3d coordinate systems, with w aligning the grid in some unknown direction.

Now, why does this matter? It matters because if two grains of sand have different x, y, z coordinates, they could still share a w coordinate where information is being transmitted. To break that down a dimension, go back and make an x/y grid. Place three grains of rice at (2,2), (2,6), and (6,2). If the information being transmitted is to a 1 dimensional system, then the rice at 2,2 and 2,6 both transmit the value of two, despite being in different places.

Why does this matter? Because it means quantum entanglement transmitting the same information in 3d space, means they must be in the same location in some other dimension of space, which implies a 4th, 5th, 6th, or more dimensions.

If anything it argues against the universe actually being a 3d projection from a 2d plane of data like a VR simulation is.
not really it gives the theory more substance

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:12 AM
the universe is one dimensional as we know it is one dimensional, with the most accurate description being the 2nd
edit on 26-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:21 AM

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: neoholographic
I wonder why some people grasping that our universe isn't real in the objective material sense is so hard to take in. When you say the universe is an illusion of information on a 2D surface, you're not saying nothing is real, you're just saying what appears to be real isn't what you thought it was. Here's the definition of illusion.

But a 3D universe "projected" from 2D information CAN be real. That is to say, why does it need to be an artificial simulation,

Thanks that's the perspective in been trying to point out,

Like how computer code input and/or output is entirely different

Same with the information in DNA

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:26 AM

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.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Box of Rain

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.

Right, so as we are now using and discover somewhat the same model as the so called holographic space theory states ,doesn't mean it's the same we want to imply as not real .

It also sounds more scary to think we're just a bunch of holograms, I seem to have problems with that idea,because we are so conscious about everything around us..

I hope that they are going to use another kind of name when it's fully accepted by science. .

It's not really scary or it shouldn't be. Here's a short video that explains things very well and says the third dimension is an illusion.

Here's a couple of more videos:

So, science has to have a paradigm shift from materialism to a view based on information and conscious perception.

Everything seems to be an illusion. Particles location, time, the third dimension and more.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:29 AM
Perhaps we should stop using the word "simulation" to describe the theory and start refering to it as a Digital Construct. It would infer something more tangible than an illusionay state and wouldnt upset the people who reject the idea of their loss of realness lol.

I cant help thinking of the holo characters in Star Trek, Most of them go about their lives quite happily until they are told they are just a collection of excited protons. However some embrace their state of being and thrive in their knowingness [The EMH and Vic Fontaine] the offshoot that they become as real as the "organics" they live with.
edit on 26-9-2016 by kountzero because: (no reason given)

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

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:37 AM

originally posted by: Phage

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.

You answered a different question. But okay...

The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.

How can light be the 'oldest' if the Universe is infinite?

With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost isotropic, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.

The universe is 'dark' to our eyes, but its filled with light and other energetic particles spraying in every direction from all the suns and galaxies, as far as Hubble can currently see. Any 'background glow' is just one part of one spectrum measured, imo can hardly be associated with one single way back event.

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 10:12 AM

originally posted by: intrptr
Any 'background glow' is just one part of one spectrum measured, imo can hardly be associated with one single way back event.

Except it is.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is to say, it is an empirical observation consistent with Big Bang cosmology.

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

new topics

top topics

38