Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?

[Siro]

Sure, but that was basically my point--that negative actions lead to additional negative effects just like positive actions lead to positive effects. So each person will have the same amount of positive vs negative spread between their total many worlds selves. You were the one that talked about negative actions leading to death and hence a net loss of negativity.

You keep ignoring the fact that your choices are not random. When you go to a store, there is a large probability you'll buy something. There is another probability that you will decide not to buy anything. There is a much smaller probability that you will shop lift. There is a smaller probability still that you will decide to drop your pants and take a dump on the floor. If these things have a finite probability in your wavefunction, then they will happen. But NOT WITH EQUAL FREQUENCY. It all depends on your brain and the knowledge you gathered through your experiences. So your goal should be to acquire as much positive knowledge as possible (knowledge that increases probability of good decision). So in addition to the elimination process that naturally accompanies bad decisions, the multiverse allows for a kind of control over your global self through the exercise of good choice locally.

 

[One Brow]

But if an object travels faster than light, ...

The point was that you could communicate information using quantum entanglement, and the creation and destruciton of an interference pattern in one direction to create and destroy an interference pattern on the other direction. Since quantum entanglement is being used, there is no object carrying the communication (what I ment by "no medium"), and hence no object traveling faster than c. So, you'd still have observational peculiarities like see the message arrive before it was sent in some reference frames, but no time travel and similar paradoxes.

 

[Siro]

The point was that you could communicate information using quantum entanglement, and the creation and destruciton of an interference pattern in one direction to create and destroy an interference pattern on the other direction. Since quantum entanglement is being used, there is no object carrying the communication (what I ment by "no medium"), and hence no object traveling faster than c. So, you'd still have observational peculiarities like see the message arrive before it was sent in some reference frames, but no time travel and similar paradoxes.

I haven't read the preceding conversation, so this might have been covered, but flt communication is impossible. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that c only applies to accelerating objects. How would you use entanglement to transmit information? If you have two entangled particles, and you collapse the function by measuring, say, the spin of the first particle, then the second particle will collapse to a random value of either 1/2 or -1/2. Without knowing to what state the first particle collapsed, you know nothing about how the second will. All you can get is randomness.

 

[One Brow]

I haven't read the preceding conversation, so this might have been covered, but flt communication is impossible. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that c only applies to accelerating objects. How would you use entanglement to transmit information? If you have two entangled particles, and you collapse the function by the measuring, say, spin of the first particle, then the second particle will collapse to a random value of either 1/2 or -1/2. Without knowing to what state the first particle collapsed, you know nothing about how the second will. All you can get is randomness.

The idea was that if there were a stream of particles, the information would not be what the value was, but only that there was or was not a collapsed wave function, from my understanding. The actual collapsed value would be irrelevant.

I have no idea if that would work or not.

 

[Siro]

The idea was that if there were a stream of particles, the information would not be what the value was, but only that there was or was not a collapsed wave function, from my understanding. The actual collapsed value would be irrelevant.

I have no idea if that would work or not.

And how would you tell the first particle's collapse has occurred? By making a measurement, which collapses the second particle's function anyways.

 

[One Brow]

And how would you tell the first particle's collapse has occurred? By making a measurement, which collapses the second particle's function anyways.

So, if you measure the first particle, and collapse it's wave function so that the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment disappears, there would still be an interference pattern in the second particle's movement?

 

[Hotdog]

Thanks for all the contributions to the thread. Im reading it all. I dont have a ton to contribute in the technical sense though. Which is why I haven't posted much. But it is all very interesting. Ive mostly just watched a lot of discussions and lectures on youtube. So Im still learning. I havent taken any classes on it. Been thinking I want to go back to school to learn more about this.

 

[Siro]

So, if you measure the first particle, and collapse it's wave function so that the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment disappears, there would still be an interference pattern in the second particle's movement?

Let's picture the experiment. You entangle two photons, photon A heading toward a double slit, and photon B heading in the opposite direction. Now you have two choices. You can measure photon B before photon A reaches the double slit, which will collapse the function describing both waves, breaking the entanglement. Photon A will then self-interfere normally when it goes through both slits, and you'll get the diffraction pattern. Or you can calculate it so that you measure particle B after A passes through the slits, which will mean it has already self-interfered, and you'll get the diffraction pattern.

Let me make sure you understand how the double slit works. Each time you fire a particle at a barrier with two slits, the particle-wave will diffract through both slits just as any wave would. The diffraction will create the usual peaks and troughs in the wave propagating through space (constructive and destructive interference). These peaks and troughs represent the probabilities of where the photon will end up once it hits the detector (well, more precisely it's amplitudes. Probability is those amplitudes squared). As more and more particles are fired, they all self-interfere, giving us the end results with the interference pattern. So the pattern only exists once you measure many particles and see the pattern. You can't tell anything without measurement.

 

[One Brow]

Let's picture the experiment. You entangle two photons, photon A heading toward a double slit, and photon B heading in the opposite direction. Now you have two choices. You can measure photon B before photon A reaches the double slit, which will collapse the function describing both waves, breaking the entanglement. Photon A will then self-interfere normally when it goes through both slits, and you'll get the diffraction pattern. Or you can calculate it so that you measure particle B after A passes through the slits, which will mean it has already self-interfered, and you'll get the diffraction pattern.

Let me make sure you understand how the double slit works. Each time you fire a particle at a barrier with two slits, the particle-wave will diffract through both slits just as any wave would. The diffraction will create the usual peaks and troughs in the wave propagating through space (constructive and destructive interference). These peaks and troughs represent the probabilities of where the photon will end up once it hits the detector (well, more precisely it's amplitudes. Probability is those amplitudes squared). As more and more particles are fired, they all self-interfere, giving us the end results with the interference pattern. So the pattern only exists once you measure many particles and see the pattern. You can't tell anything without measurement.

Thank you.

From what I can tell, then, the guy in the video was mistaken. He seemed to think that the two entangled would either both have diffraction patterns, or both not have diffraction patterns, based on whether the was measured or not.

That explains why the physicists all left the room without asking questions.

 

[♪alt13]

Thank you.

From what I can tell, then, the guy in the video was mistaken. He seemed to think that the two entangled would either both have diffraction patterns, or both not have diffraction patterns, based on whether the was measured or not.

That explains why the physicists all left the room without asking questions.

No he didn't say that. You are getting entanglement and interference all muddled together.

 

[One Brow]

No he didn't say that. You are getting entanglement and interference all muddled together.

OK. What was your interpretation of sending the message, possibly by Morse Code?

 

[♪alt13]

OK. What was your interpretation of sending the message, possibly by Morse Code?

He was explaining problems with certain popular interpretations when he said that and later he explained why he thinks it is not possible. Secondly he was talking about entanglement not interference. Interference is what causes the pattern. Entanglement is when the position of two photons have become correlated so that if you know the position of one you will know the position of the other.

 

[One Brow]

He was explaining problems with certain interpretations when he said that and later he explained why he thinks it is not possible. Secondly he was talking about entanglement not interference. Interference is what causes the pattern. Entanglement is when the position of two protons have become correlated so that if you know the position of one you will know the position of the other.

As I understood Siro, entanglement does not mean when you know the position of one than you know the position of the other.

 

[♪alt13]

As I understood Siro, entanglement does not mean when you know the position of one than you know the position of the other.

It does(if they are in fact entangled). Siro was saying(as I understand him) that you destroy the entanglement if you attempt to measure them but they will still both create an interference pattern.

 

[Siro]

So each entity in the universe exists as a wave described by a wavefunction. These wavefunctions contain all the properties of the entity. So a proton, for example, has a wavefunction that can be used to calculate its energy and charge and so on. But a proton is made up of other particles called quarks. Quarks also have wavefunctions. In a particle accelerator, like the LHC, protons are smashed together so hard that they disassociate into other particles, including quarks. Those particles that come out of the protons are all entangled with one another. Why? Because they came from the same source wavefunction. The proton had a charge of +1. All the particles that come out of it must have a charge that add up to +1. It had a certain spin, energy, momenta, and they are all subject to conservation laws. So when physicists gather all the signals they received from smashing a particle, they add them up. If they add up to less than the original particles, then a discovery is possible!

The opposite is also true. Just like one particle can break apart into a bunch of entangled particles, a bunch of particles can be combined into a single system. In other words, you start with two particles, and you put them in a situation where their once separate wavefunction merge into one. The original wavefunctions can no longer be separated from the combined one. It is now a single system that contains the combined properties of the constituents (similar to the way quarks and gluons make up a proton).

Taking the simple example of spin, you start out with one electron with an up spin and another with a down spin. Once the two electrons entangle, they will form a new entity with zero spin (up + down = zero). Now you perform a spin measurement on the first "particle" (on the entangled system), and since nature won't allow you to see a particle than is spinning up and down at the same time, it will either give you up or down. But now the wavefunction that contained both spins is depleted! If you measured one spin as an up, then all that remains in the function is the down spin. The second particle is forced to take the remaining spin. So knowing the property of the first will ensure you know the property of the second.

This works for all properties, not just spin. For example a photon with no charge can transform into an entangled positron-electron pair with zero net-charge, even though both components are charged.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[Siro]

Oh, one more thing. The entangled pair does not communicate! It's not like one particle sends a signal to the other telling it that a measurement was made. The measurement is made on a single function, collapsing both particles, regardless of where the measurement was made, and how far apart the system components are.

 

[♪alt13]

So each entity in the universe exists as a wave described by a wavefunction. These wavefunctions contain all the properties of the entity. So a proton, for example, has a wavefunction that can be used to calculate its energy and charge and so on. But a proton is made up of other particles called quarks. Quarks also have wavefunctions. In a particle accelerator, like the LHC, protons are smashed together so hard that they disassociate into other particles, including quarks. Those particles that come out of the protons are all entangled with one another. Why? Because they came from the same source wavefunction. The proton had a charge of +1. All the particles that come out of it must have a charge that add up to +1. It had a certain spin, energy, momenta, and they are all subject to conservation laws. So when physicists gather all the signals they received from smashing a particle, they add them up. If they add up to less than the original particles, then a discovery is possible!

The opposite is also true. Just like one particle can break apart into a bunch of entangled particles, a bunch of particles can be combined into a single system. In other words, you start with two particles, and you put them in a situation where their once separate wavefunction merge into one. The original wavefunctions can no longer be separated from the combined one. It is now a single system that contains the combined properties of the constituents (similar to the way quarks and gluons make up a proton).

Taking the simple example of spin, you start out with one electron with an up spin and another with a down spin. Once the two electrons entangle, they will form a new entity with zero spin (up + down = zero). Now you perform a spin measurement on the first "particle" (on the entangled system), and since nature won't allow you to see a particle than is spinning up and down at the same time, it will either give you up or down. But now the wavefunction that contained both spins is depleted! If you measured one spin as an up, then all that remains in the function is the down spin. The second particle is forced to take the remaining spin. So knowing the property of the first will ensure you know the property of the second.

This works for all properties, not just spin. For example a photon with no charge can transform into an entangled positron-electron pair with zero net-charge, even though both components are charged.

I hope this clarifies things.

It soooo does.

You have given me an understanding(albeit simple) as to how entanglement occurs.

Thank you

 

[DutchJazzer]

Are you familiar the double slit experiment, and the quantum wave function?


Just curious if anyone else follows Physics and Quantum Mechanics. The stuff is really mind blowing and interesting. Im kind mad at myself for not making it my study going to college for it. I really like listening to guys like Leonard Susskind. I can listen to it for hours.

i hope not. because if someone is observing this holographic universe. it would be pretty embarrising with all the jerking of i'm doing

 

[juandiego]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

 

[Hotdog]

i hope not. because if someone is observing this holographic universe. it would be pretty embarrising with all the jerking of i'm doing

thats a good point dutch. I have thought of that too. It would be really weird if someone could see all the jerking off people do.