Mordred

When it comes to the wave-functions and superposition absolutely, the very act of measurement collapses the superposition state.

You know what I find amusing is that the OP is defending his own personal definitions (time flows) that he also argues are incorrect based on circular logic.

Ok lets start with quantum entanglement so lets test your knowledge. 1) describe Einstein locality 2) How does Einstein locality apply to the statistical correlation function in the Bells experiment ? When you entangle particles they gain a correlation function. 3) how does that correlation function relate the conservation laws in particle physics ie conservation of spin as one example If you can properly answer these questions you will find that it has nothing to do with being in a simulated universe I will get to your matter=energy statement next (hint define those two terms)

Your welcome if anything it will give you the proper direction of research into the issue

And nothing on that list requires us to be living in an simulated universe as much of that list describe methodologies pertaining to developing simulations to describe our real universe. Much like the useful N-body codes. Our ability to make mathematical predictions and develop codes to aid us in doing so doesn't mean we live in a simulated universe. Some of the items on that list are so poorly understood that without you posting further details on the connection to it being a reason we live in a simulated universe makes it difficult to determine if you properly understand the item on that list. One example being non locality. Needless to say quantum entanglement is so poorly understood one can readily surmise its not being applied correctly to a thread of this nature. Another one that is far too often misunderstood is the dimensional compactification of the holographic principle. (any infinite quantity contains a finite portion (this process is literally what is meant when you compactify a dimension.) the Holgraphic principle uses this and gauge group symmetries to reduce the effective degrees of freedom for the number of required dimensions which is accurately described as the number of independent variables required to specify a coordinate.

The problem in gravity becoming an effective field theory in the quantum regime such as QFT is largely due to the detail that gravity isn't renomalizable. This is a technique that utilizes IR and UV cut-offs to handle infinities. In order to do this one must have invariant quantities that work at thee extremely small and the extremely large scales. In the case of QED etc, these are typically handled by finite quantities of the bosons ie a photon for example. This will correspond to the loop diagrams of the internal and external legs of a Feymann diagram. Now in the other three fields we have effective gauge bosons with an effective coupling constant that provides effective IR and UV cutoffs. However in the case of gravity this would theoretically be the graviton, however gravity is far too weak at the particle scale to quantize the graviton. This prevents us from developing an effective loop integral for number of vertexes etc on Feymann diagrams. Now one might think this is a huge problem, however our current theories of gravity work just fine at larger scales than the quantum regime and it is simply the quantum regime that gravity becomes an issue ie quantizing a theoretical graviton. (which will be used to prevent infinities) at the upper and lower energy scales. IR being infrared, UV being ultraviolet divergences. In essence it boils down to having effective cut-offs where the same number of parameters work at both scale spectrums. At the Planck mass scale for gravity the number of parameters to absorb the infinity quantities becomes infinite itself in essence (as this is hard to describe without getting too in depth on the mathematical details) That being said there are other techniques to avoid infinities arising in spacetime, in LQC for example they use Wicks rotation under gauge group to prevent singular conditions. Wicks rotation takes a waveform and uses an inverted mirror image to apply an effective finite portion (where the two waveforms intersect) So in LQC they have no singularity conditions due to infinite quantities by this methodology. Another proposed technique is one being approached under F(r) gravity which uses a Wilsonian renormalization group. Here is a PDF on this. http://inspirehep.net/record/1317764/files/Thesis_2010_Machado.pdf If you read the introductory it will highlight much of what I described in this post. String theory utilizes strings in which the open and closed strings are both finite quantities and have effective cut-offs ( Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions) for each string type. https://math.berkeley.edu/~kwray/papers/string_theory.pdf Once again the introductory will discuss the renormalization problem. This is the simplest introductory into renormalization I was able to find hope it helps https://www.ate.uni-duisburg-essen.de/data/postgraduate_lecture/AJP_2011_Olness.pdf

As Swansont mentioned Wiki isn't an authority on physics neither is its definitions. Particularly since the reference that Wiki used in this case is from a process control engineering handbook....its unfortunate so many other websites blindly use it as an immediate reference. That however does not make it always correct or accurate. Wiki would have been better off in this case to pick up a physics textbook for a reference.... If you can provide a professional peer reviewed support of your definition then please feel free to provide it. I certainly do not believe in the philosophy you described above, I leave philosophy to others. The use of the definition "time is what a clock reads" is arbitrary as a measurement tool does not define what it is measuring. Particularly with the issues of variable time under GR. Any process that has a consistent interval can measure the passing of time. That however does not DEFINE time...

lmao

Back years ago when I first started my studies, I once questioned :how can the (just slightly singularity radius have a temperature if time essentially stops" ? ) the answer was correctly applied, it stops or infinitely redshifts to certain observers. the point being based on the laws of thermodynamics all observers aside we can make the educated guess that after crossing the EH our laws of the universe still applies. An outside observer cannot measure this but an in-falling observer can. One of the primary laws is that higher density equates to higher temperatures. We can plot the graph until the Planck temperature which is of order [latex] 10^32[/latex] which is on similar scale to the point we can equate to the singularity of the BB initial temperature at [latex] 10^{-43}[/latex]. Higher than this temperature our math breaks down into further inconsistencies. Its a fairly safe bet that until you hit the actual singularity the laws of physics should be much the same as we now know it but there is no way to confirm this. One has to carefully examine the type of observer when making calculations. the two key distinctions being an in-falling vs outside observer. the answer to the last post should consider this key aspect... to the outside observer temperature infinitely redshifts (approaches zero Kelvin) this isn't necessarily true for the in-falling observer. Hawking radiation is primarily shown using the Schwartzchild metric. The observer in this case is the one at infinity that sees the infinite redshift. (the metric doesn't delve into inside the EH hence its specifications to the surface boundary). now lets think about that a sec.... as an EH gets smaller it gets hotter why ? the answer is based on the above... and one must understand how "Observers" enter the picture. An EH is an apparent horizon as different coordinate changes can relocate the EH. Or in the case of the Kerr metric have multiple EH's.

Oh man don't get me started on defining the term physical lmao this thread can definitely take a strong tangent on that term. distance and time are both physical properties... hint hint as to how difficult the term "physical can apply" ? You gave the EM field as an example. Each measurable quantity is a physical quantity. (physical does not mean materialistic or corpuscular)

good plan lets pull this to a different thread as its good learning for other readers at the least.. particularly when it comes to the numerous misconceptions of higher dimensions and compactifying those higher dimensions etc. Good luck on your fund raiser

Neither of us disagree with the definition of dimension (including higher dimensions) being an independent variable, so lets not sidelight this thread on all the possible case scenarios...neither of us disagree on how to define a field either for that matter lol. You certainly know as one example the radial basis function only depends on the distance from the origin and can be treated as an independent variable on a x,y graph. Though I'm still waiting to see if the OP is going to respond to some of the raised points of this thread

tensors are functions those three are tensor fields. lets not confuse a dimension with a function. Those three fields have the same dimensions described under 4d and before you mention it yes you can create a dimension (independent variable via an arbitrary function)

True not in all applications we cross posted I had added an example of one case where we can and do under GR. (in this case I used the weak Newton limit GR solution) [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] the advantage here and one of the reasons its possible to overlap in this case is that all three fields share the same coordinate axis (identical dimensional basis)

a side note we can however overlay different fields, which are assigned values/functions under a geometric basis. The different fields typically but not always have the same dimensional axis. ie 3 spatial and 1 time for example. lets use an example under the same coordinate basis, {ct, x, y, z} I can overlap the Minkowskii field [latex] \eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] with the permutation field [latex] g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] this results in a resultant field [latex] g_{\mu\nu}[/latex]. Note a the first two tensors describe two distinct types of fields. The Minkowskii can be described as a scalar field while the latter can be either a scalar or vector field.

Probably the most accurate way to think of gravity is the effect of spacetime curvature. You can have mass with a uniform distribution that has mass but generates no gravity. However once mass becomes denser in a region compared to the surrounding regions you get the spacetime curvature terms it is the effect upon spacetime paths that we see as gravity. On the pressure descriptives this isn't the best approach, pressure is a specific term meaning the amount of force per unit volume. This under GR and gauge theories to the amount of force applied in a coordinate direction in a given interval. On living in a BH, well this theory has been proposed in so many formats I lost count, the problem with this is that it is nearly impossible to have a homogeneous and isotropic (uniform mean average) mass distribution that we measure and observe with high confidence in our universe. Some models take extreme measures to make a BH based model work. The more plausible manner typically involves time dilation to account for the homogenous and isotropic distribution when a BH based model will have a preferred direction and location which is inhomogeneous and anistropic. ( preferred location and direction)

I don't believe so as, the f=ma was in reference to mass, however the definition I gave for density does not require mass. If you note a probability density function does not require mass. It could be the probability density to locate a particle or the probability density of the number of sheep in a field as two examples. The f=ma was simply an example of an applicable density function. The mathematical formulas of Newton's laws of inertia change is how mass is mathematically defined under physics. Anytime a mass term is used those laws apply. The directly relates to the verbal definition of resistance to inertia change. The term mass is defined via the formula itself.

Hrrm interesting challenge, Lets see the average value of a function (example probability density) or quantity in a given volume. Mass being resistance to inertia change (modern definition ) defined by f=ma would quality under the first portion.

So am I perhaps a better argument than last post with a more precise direction ? After all well thought out debates can be enjoyable...

Time flowing is a descriptive it is not part of the definition of time. Though there are numerous different definitions some arguably more accurate than others. Wik's isn't bad Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time Try not to confuse descriptives with definitions cross posted, your looking at a descriptive not a definition of time. In simple terms the statement time flows is a descriptive of behavior. A descriptive of behavior of time does not define time.

I'm positive many of the pop media convenient descriptive's commonly used are often misleading. The descriptive time flows being one of them admittedly as it tends to lead people to place some substance or force like property to time instead of a term to represent rate of change. Other examples being the descriptive spacetime fabric. Time reversibility being another, the problem is that people do not wish to know this descriptive is a mathematical vector under a geometry basis. If they simply state the formulas who would pay attention that doesn't like the mathematics lol. The time reversibility is a symmetry descriptive to verbally describe vector direction under a change in sign + or minus. where time is treated as a geometric dimension. This also entails time can flow under math treatments. However once again its a descriptive...

Well its clear nothing in the OP has been overly convincing...so I guess that's that with the last response. Cheers

Depending on the extremes of examination, technically each coordinate has its own rate of time, two coordinates side by side could have extremely small differences. For example the rate of time at you feet is different than your head. So by average I mean for the volume of the state being examined or a region where Newton's laws of inertia and Galilean vector addition apply to good approximation or where one can consider that region as homogeneous and isotropic in mass density (Euclidean flat). As each coordinate in that region can have different time rates one must average the mass density of the region.

A change in inertia requires acceleration, however objects undergo motion without acceleration being involved. So they are changing coordinates from one location to another. It isn't a reason for time dilation in and of itself, though it does have consequences (rotations of the Lorentz transformations under SR) (rapidity). Each tick of a mechanical clock may require acceleration to occur but this does not relate to the average rate of time in a given locale.

All objects are essentially part of spacetime this includes timekeeping devices. Or any other process such as particle decay. A timekeeping device can be any device with regular intervals of some measurable change in state. All devices will always have a certain degree of inaccuracy, regardless of how perfect. The Heisenberg uncertainty would also apply in this regard. So no measurements under a spacetime geometry can ever be perfect. Though without quantum effects one can get incredibly accurate. (often times good enough is just that lol)