Speculative Hijack from Quantum Entanglement ?

[Randolpin]

Quantum entanglement is explained if we are in a simulation. You see two separated particles even they are billions of ly away still interact with each other faster than the speed of light.Why is this so? It seems that there are invisible wires connecting them. This mystery is explained when we are living in a simulation. Space is only an illusion and actually there is no space which separates those particles. Imagine in a computer screen. If you click something in the right of screen, it will instantly affect something at the left side of screen like the scenario in playing games.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Quantum entanglement is explained if we are in a simulation.

It is also explained by actual physics so we don't really need these science fiction stories. 

[Itoero]

18 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Quantum entanglement is explained if we are in a simulation. You see two separated particles even they are billions of ly away still interact with each other faster than the speed of light.Why is this so? It seems that there are invisible wires connecting them. This mystery is explained when we are living in a simulation. Space is only an illusion and actually there is no space which separates those particles. Imagine in a computer screen. If you click something in the right of screen, it will instantly affect something at the left side of screen like the scenario in playing games.

+1 for that. I like how you explain it. The universe like we observe it is imo a holographic simulation.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I like how you explain it.

Even though it is fiction? 

[Itoero]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Even though it is fiction? 

Yes, there is a lot in the world of science that supports that view.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes, there is a lot in the world of science that supports that view.

Really? Evidence that this is a simulation and entanglement is an artefact of that?

Perhaps you could provide a reference to this evidence?

Or perhaps you don't mean "science"?

[Itoero]

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? Evidence that this is a simulation and entanglement is an artefact of that?

Perhaps you could provide a reference to this evidence?

Or perhaps you don't mean "science"?

If the universe is a simulation then the universe is a hologram, those are different words which can explain the same thing. Many scientists believe in the holographic principle. An ER bridge and ER=EPR you can call the start of the holographic principle/idea.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Itoero

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

If the universe is a simulation then the universe is a hologram

Why? Those are two completely different concepts.

Also, you have not provided any evidence that the universe is a simulation. This is not science.

Quote

Many scientists believe in the holographic principle.

The holographic principle does not say that the universe is a hologram. More science fiction.

Quote

An ER bridge and ER=EPR you can call the start of the holographic principle/idea.

Citation needed.

 

[Itoero]

This thread is about entanglement.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This thread is about entanglement.

So is that your way admitting that you have no evidence to support your belief in Randolpin's fairy stories for how entanglement works? By running away from the issue ...

[Randolpin]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

It is also explained by actual physics so we don't really need these science fiction stories. 

Simulation theory is the actual physics theory.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

Simulation theory is the actual physics theory.

So do you have any evidence? Otherwise it is not science.

[Randolpin]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

So do you have any evidence? Otherwise it is not science.

From: https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed¹ that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa (see 'Collaborative physics: String theory finds a bench mate'). But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

In one paper², Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the Hole!'). In the other³, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match.

“It seems to be a correct computation,” says Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey and who did not contribute to the team's work.

Regime change

The findings “are an interesting way to test many ideas in quantum gravity and string theory”, Maldacena adds. The two papers, he notes, are the culmination of a series of articles contributed by the Japanese team over the past few years. “The whole sequence of papers is very nice because it tests the dual [nature of the universes] in regimes where there are no analytic tests.”

“They have numerically confirmed, perhaps for the first time, something we were fairly sure had to be true, but was still a conjecture — namely that the thermodynamics of certain black holes can be reproduced from a lower-dimensional universe,” says Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University in California who was among the first theoreticians to explore the idea of holographic universes.

Neither of the model universes explored by the Japanese team resembles our own, Maldacena notes. The cosmos with a black hole has ten dimensions, with eight of them forming an eight-dimensional sphere. The lower-dimensional, gravity-free one has but a single dimension, and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.

Nevertheless, says Maldacena, the numerical proof that these two seemingly disparate worlds are actually identical gives hope that the gravitational properties of our Universe can one day be explained by a simpler cosmos purely in terms of quantum theory.

Nature

 

doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14328

or you can visit this :http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

Edited August 16, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

From: https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

But you said:

22 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Quantum entanglement is explained if we are in a simulation.

Do you have any evidence that the universe is a simulation?

If not (and you don't) then it is just science fiction. Therefore not an alternative to science.

 

And, while we are at it: is the universe a hologram? No. That is NOT what the holographic principle says:

Quote

You may have read today that the entire universe is a giant hologram. Maybe your mind was blown while you hit your Big Bong and contemplated a 2D universe, or that researchers had somehow found substantial evidence you were “living in an illusion.”

No, nope. Not what happened.

https://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

[Area54]

Randolpin, can you point me to the portion of the quoted paper that deals with simulation? (Spoiler Alert: You can't. It doesn't.)

 

Edit: Cross posted with Strange

Edited August 16, 2017 by Area54

[Randolpin]

I admitted that it does not explain but I provided the second link or Brian Whitworths points.

[Strange]

And a couple of other relevant quotations from that Gizomodo article:

Quote

Other researchers were intrigued by the results, but pointed out that the holographic model isn’t preferred over the standard models of cosmology that scientists currently use to study both the present universe and the universe around the time of the Big Bang.

Quote

And finally, somehow, no one else seemed to ask the researchers the most important question: Does the model say that we’re living in a hologram? “I would say you don’t live in a hologram ..." said Afshordi.

 

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I admitted that it does not explain but I provided the second link or Brian Whitworths points.

Well that's good, but sixteen minutes ago you posted this " Simulation theory is the actual physics theory "

So I'm confused as to what you are actually trying to say.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Area54

[Randolpin]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

Well that's good, but sixteen minutes ago you postes this " Simulation theory is the actual physics theory "

 

Let me rather say "Simulation theory, could be the actual physics theory."

Read Whitworth's points 

Sorry for my carelessness that I quoted improper quotes or links.

[swansont]

At a very basic level, a hologram is 2 spatial coordinates and a phase, which act as the third spatial coordinate. So you can do a transformation between a 3D system and a holographic one.  

And all of this ignores that model are not reality. A ten dimensional model works, but that does not mean that reality is ten-dimensional.

[Randolpin]

This could explain: 

From:http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

Material under copyright removed by moderator - too much to be considered fair use

Edited August 16, 2017 by Phi for All
Copyright violation, material removed

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

This could explain: 

From:http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

1. Copyright violation.

2. Not science. Still science fiction.

Also, much of it is just plain wrong. Is this ignorance or deliberate deception on the part of Brian Whitworth (whoever he is)?

OK. Googling him, he is not a scientist so I put it down to ignorance. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Strange

[MigL]

The 'universe is a simulation' argument is essentially the same as if there was an intelligence guiding the evolution of the universe, i.e. 'God did it'. It is an argument from ignorance which by definition, cannot be substantiated. And even though here is a possibility that either simulation or God may not be fantasy, I prefer the use of Occam's razor to keep things as simple as possible.

The Holographic principle is a MODEL, as Swansont has pointed out. That means certain aspects of reality behave AS IF the universe were a projection of the lower dimensional bounding surface.
And as Strange has pointed out numerous times the Holographic principle does NOT equate to simulation.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

This could explain: 

From:http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

10 Reasons Why Our Universe Is A Virtual Reality

It's a false dichotomy, it's largely philosophy, and there are many instances where the description of the physics is just wrong.

e.g. Feynman diagrams are presented as part of physical realism? Seriously?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

This could explain: 

!

Moderator Note

You can't copy/paste whole pieces of work protected by copyright like that. Quoting the relevant bits in a limited way falls under fair use, but please refrain from misusing the work of others.