Strange

Because this is all too vague to be scientifically testable.

Yep. Some things are absolute. That is the post I am making. Just because "some things have been proved wrong in the past" does not mean that everything may be wrong. Mathematical and logical proofs are absolute, for example. You still seem to think that I am saying your idea is wrong. I am not. That is a vey kind assessment.

All the electrons and positrons would annihilate, resulting in photons. Picturing is easy. Too easy. And useless. The only way to test your idea is to create a model that produces testable (ie. quantitative) predictions. OK. So let's say we measure that. How do we know if it agrees with your theory, the current theory or someone else's theory? To do that, we need to compare the measured numbers with the numbers produced by each model. That is why you need a model that can produce quantitative (numerical) results. And there goes irony.

Again, if it gives the same results, then you can't distinguish it from current theory. But you said it can be distinguished because it gives different results ("the difference between my model and yours, is that in my model, the capacity of the void to carry information is NOT infinite"). So, either it gives the same results or it doesn't. Which is it?

You appear to be mixing up the quantum description (photons) with the classical description (oscillating electric and magnetic fields). These are different models. This seems to contradict your claim that "I already know what a virtual particle is, thanks." I really suggest you study some more instead of assuming it must all be wrong because you don't know how to make sense of it. Having "particles of the void" that carry information is not part of the standard model, so the math cannot be the same. That is a bit of an open question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy If you had a model that gave an answer, then that would be amazing. Unfortunately, you don't have a model ...

As I said, you would need to quantify this.

I'm not doing that though. As I say, I don't have an opinion on it. (I have an opinion on believing it, but that's another matter!) I am just pointing out that it (solipsism, virtual reality, Last-Thursdayism, etc) is unprovable (and unfalsifiable) by definition. So there can never be objective, scientific evidence for it. You are, of course, free to consider that deja vu, coincidences, past lives, entanglement, or the Mandela effect are evidence for it. But someone else can equally validly believe that it is not evidence for that (but that it is evidence for mind control by our lizard overlords, or whatever). Isn't that just what your Simulators are doing?

BTW: please do go and read the articles from Prof Strassler. I'm sure you will find them interesting, and it might open your mind to the depth and complexity of the subject.

That would require different math. For example (as I said before) you would need math to say exactly what this limited capacity is. Without that, how do we know if you are correct (someone else may have a different model that also predicts limited capacity for different reasons, so we would need to have quantitative tests). (I suspect current theory already sets a limit on the information content of a volume of space. So you would need to show how yours was different.) Interpretations are irrelevant. There are dozens of different interpretations of quantum theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) they all describe the same thing (the mathematics) in different ways. None of them are experimentally distinguishable (because they are describing the same mathematics) and none of them can tell us anything about the world. That is a subjective opinion. But you would still need to show that your interpretation is compatible with experiment. Like, the fact we cannot detect virtual particles (except indirectly in some special cases).

Some things are just impossible. For example, proving or disproving solipsism or Last-Thursdayism. That is not an opinion it is an inevitable consequence of the concept. I can't see any way in which a simulated universe is any different from those. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.

So there is no way to test your idea?

Not really. I don't think "interaction" was the right word. Manifestation, maybe? But it is the same underlying field. Particles (real ones) are "permanent" perturbations of the field. Virtual particles are transient "ripples" in the field that either carry force between "real" particles or just have temporary existence (because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). Read the article by Prof. Strassler. (He has a whole load of articles introducing wave equations, fields, particles, etc) 1. I don't have a "void must be void" feeling (whatever that is). We know there is no such thing as a void because of the non-zero energy of "empty" space, and the uncertainty principle. 2. How can we know it is simpler until you have a simpler mathematical model? (And if, as you say, the math is the same, then how is it simpler?) 3. How do we test this idea with no model? (And if the math is the same, then the predicted results of any test will be the same.) And yet, quantum theory is enormously successful. So it appears your conclusion is wrong. (Strictly speaking, the field doesn't describe the probability; the wave equation does.)

Yes. Virtual particles are misnamed; they are not really particles: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ No. They are just different types of interactions of the (same) field.

Either: a) you have a different model, in which case you would need to show your math so people can decide if it is consistent with reality or not; or b) the math is the same in which case there is no difference between your model and the current one. Saying, "I have a new model but the math is the same" doesn't make much sense.

No, I mean the diagrams represent the virtual particles. They would be different diagrams (to represent the different math) if all the particles were real.

Then you are not doing science. <shrug> I don't really care. It's your loss.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are the one claiming to have a new theory. I am just pointing out that a scientific theory requires a mathematical model and testable predictions. How can you know it doesn't contradict your idea, when you have no mathematical model? Then it isn't the same. If it were the same, you would only have virtual particles. (That is what is represented by the Feynman diagrams.)

Because you haven't shown the math for it.

You have that the wrong way round. The wave function came first and then the interpretation of it as the probability of finding the particle in a location. But the wave function does a lot more than that. And, again, the diagrams were invented to make it easier to visualise the underlying math.

I doubt it. The errors I spotted were so egregious, they were obvious when just skimming it. A more detailed reading might show up even more problems. This is not something I have a strong feelings about either way. Because there isn't, and cannot be, any evidence. So there is no reason to have an opinion about it.

Exactly. We need evidence. Yep. When it is treated as a particle, it has zero size.

I just skimmed through that. It is a hot mess. It is so full of errors that it would probably take an equally long paper to dissect them all. I don’t have time for that at the moment...

Where that quote says “That quantum theory permits this in no way explains how a physical “thing” can move to where no intervening path is possible” I assume what they mean is “no way explains in a way acceptable to me.” Because, of course, the fact that quantum theory permits it is the explanation of why it can happen. In other words, just an argument from incredulity (a well-known fallacy). That is one possible hypotheses. There are many others. Many based around the fact that memory is known to be extremely unreliable. It is trivially easy to change people’s memory of past events or create false memories. So one needs to look at all the evidence related to a hypothesis, not just pick a few that could be consistent. Then there is Occam’s razor, which tells us to reject the hypothesis that adds extra things when we have another which uses only that which is known (also known as the principle of parsimony).

If you google "pronunciation <name>" you will get several websites that offer you the "correct" pronunciation. In this case, there is quite a bit of variety (groo, grooee, greeva). This one claims to be the German pronunciation: https://forvo.com/word/grewe/ (close to greeva) We do have a German-speaking member, so maybe they will be able to confirm that. But the "correct" pronunciation of a foreign word or name in English is a tricky question. Some languages have sounds that don't exist in English, for example. Should we struggle to pronounce them? And if everyone knows a particular "wrong" (Anglicised) pronunciation, shouldn't we consider that to be the correct way to say it in English. But, then again it really grates when I hear people badly mispronounce names that I am familiar with from the original language. So there is no easy answer! The trouble is, if you start pronouncing it "correctly" your chemists might not know what you are saying!

You "think" there are no differences? How about proving the two model are mathematically equivalent? As real particles and virtual particles are very different things I find this argument extremely unconvincing with either mathematics or evidence to back it up. So, to make this testable, you need to quantify this "void density" and specify exactly what the "complexity a qubit can carry" is. Unless these are quantitative predictions, they are not testable. Of course, doing that would require a model. Which you don't have so ...