QuantumT

It is when the player (or game character) looks at something. The GPU then instantly responds by loading the object / surroundings in question. Well, if we assume that reality is virtual, there is nothing counter intuitive about the observer effect. It's actually the only scenario in which it makes perfect sense. I guess it's all about how the evidence is interpreted. To me the collapse of the wave function is valid evidence of a virtual universe, just like Brownian motion is evidence of molecules. I should also mention that I used "commonsense reasoning" as a pun, because it is a strong AI term 😁

Well, I think it can be de-mystified with commonsense reasoning 😉 Only problem is the rejection that naturally follows, when ones paradigm is challenged. How does quantisation explain the observer effect? If you ask me, it is much better and simpler explained as a GPU response. But guys, don't mind me. I know you don't agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince you. The subject of this thread was begging me to throw it in. I'll hush now 😁

Just like there's a logical reason for Brownian motion, I firmly believe there's a logical reason for duality. We just need to find it (or gain consensus for an existing idea).

https://www.sciencealert.com/d-star-hexaquark-particles-could-be-responsible-for-creating-dark-matter https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6471/ab67e8

I think it depends on the attitude of the scientist. Scientists are people like everybody else, and they have likes and dislikes. Some dislike mysteries, that leave room for woo interpretations, so they prefer to cut the BS and simply say "that's just how nature is". I, myself, am the more stubborn kind, and refuse to give up on achieving a reasonable explanation.

Could this mean that the dimensionless constants were different in the early universe?

Neither do I (understand quantum biology), I'm just the messenger. I was hoping a discussion, here on this forum, would reveal what it's about, and its possible applications. But I find evidence of "macro" duality fascinating, because it breaks the boundaries we thought it had. It's not only a quantum phenomenon as we originally assumed. And that is worthy of being "breaking news" IMHO. But it's not treated so. Fullerenes are simple carbon molecules. This is a step further.

Thanks for clarifying that. One final question: Is space divided into stationary quantum fields, or are they moving around?

Thanks guys, I now better understand quantum field oscillation. Question is, does the energy jump/leap from field to field (disappear/reappear)?

I see I'm not the only one wondering about the origin: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_does_vacuum_energy_come_from (it's a forum thread) Some suggest the energy comes from photons. Could that be right?

Yes, I've read that page. As I understand it, "the nature of vacuum energy" remains an unsolved problem. So we just don't know where it comes from, is that right?

So, no origin and no time travel?

Been googling for an answer to this for weeks now, but to no avail, so I turn to you guys as the last resort. When two virtual particles emerge in a vacuum (fluctuation), where does the energy come from? I've heard claims that the energy comes from the future (but not from a reliable source). Is that true? (Or is it from the past?) Does the energy involved in quantum fluctuation really travel in time? Or is the origin undetermined?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614688/a-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time/

I wouldn't call that 'fading', but more its means of influence being taken away. I imagine it would come back, if the right circumstances were to arise somehow.

I can't imagine that gravity will ever fade away, but what about the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force? Do they have an expiration date? Will atoms one day lose their energy and fall apart? If not, how is it possible for them to preserve their energy?

Today (well, a few days ago) I learned that, in the observable universe, a quarter of the volume in cubic meters corresponds to the amount of particles with mass: 10^80 I assume it would look something like this as an equation: 0.25 * V = P If this is wrong, blame google 😁

In Denmark, hand sanitizers with ethanol, are being used with great effect in all areas of health care. I was recently in a Danish hospital, and the sanitizer gel was everywhere, with instructions to use before touching anything. Patients with 'super bugs' had sanitizers at their beds, and cleaning after them was done with chlorine. It works! Now we just need to address the usage of antibiotics in agriculture.

Finally I managed to find a description to the claims. It has a name. Zero Energy Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe It's a hypothesis.

It seems Michio Kaku agrees. He says* the exact same thing. (* duration 1 minute 16 seconds)

Then I suppose my presentation is correct. The video is only there, so you can 'see it for yourself'. It is only 3 minutes long. This is his claim: Is that correct?

I'm sorry if I presented it wrong, I didn't intend to. But didn't he say that gravity is the counterpart of matter?

Yeah, I sensed there was something kooky about his claims...

Okay, I just saw this short 3 minute video about our universe coming from nothing. In it, the narrator says that gravity is the counterpart (negative energy) that balances the universe to a total value of 0 energy. Is that correct?

Thank you very much, Mordred. So if the wave state is applicable in our reality/world/universe or whatever, does that not mean it weakens the many worlds hypothesis?