Black Holes May Hide a Mind-Bending Secret About Our Universe (msn.com) 136
"For the last century the biggest bar fight in science has been between Albert Einstein and himself," reports the New York Times:
On one side is the Einstein who in 1915 conceived general relativity, which describes gravity as the warping of space-time by matter and energy. That theory predicted that space-time could bend, expand, rip, quiver like a bowl of Jell-O and disappear into those bottomless pits of nothingness known as black holes. On the other side is the Einstein who, starting in 1905, laid the foundation for quantum mechanics, the nonintuitive rules that inject randomness into the world — rules that Einstein never accepted. According to quantum mechanics, a subatomic particle like an electron can be anywhere and everywhere at once, and a cat can be both alive and dead until it is observed. God doesn't play dice, Einstein often complained.
Gravity rules outer space, shaping galaxies and indeed the whole universe, whereas quantum mechanics rules inner space, the arena of atoms and elementary particles. The two realms long seemed to have nothing to do with each other; this left scientists ill-equipped to understand what happens in an extreme situation like a black hole or the beginning of the universe.
But a blizzard of research in the last decade on the inner lives of black holes has revealed unexpected connections between the two views of the cosmos. The implications are mind-bending, including the possibility that our three-dimensional universe — and we ourselves — may be holograms, like the ghostly anti-counterfeiting images that appear on some credit cards and drivers licenses. In this version of the cosmos, there is no difference between here and there, cause and effect, inside and outside or perhaps even then and now; household cats can be conjured in empty space. We can all be Dr. Strange.
"It may be too strong to say that gravity and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing," Leonard Susskind of Stanford University wrote in a paper in 2017. "But those of us who are paying attention may already sense that the two are inseparable, and that neither makes sense without the other."
That insight, Dr. Susskind and his colleagues hope, could lead to a theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics — quantum gravity — and perhaps explains how the universe began.
Gravity rules outer space, shaping galaxies and indeed the whole universe, whereas quantum mechanics rules inner space, the arena of atoms and elementary particles. The two realms long seemed to have nothing to do with each other; this left scientists ill-equipped to understand what happens in an extreme situation like a black hole or the beginning of the universe.
But a blizzard of research in the last decade on the inner lives of black holes has revealed unexpected connections between the two views of the cosmos. The implications are mind-bending, including the possibility that our three-dimensional universe — and we ourselves — may be holograms, like the ghostly anti-counterfeiting images that appear on some credit cards and drivers licenses. In this version of the cosmos, there is no difference between here and there, cause and effect, inside and outside or perhaps even then and now; household cats can be conjured in empty space. We can all be Dr. Strange.
"It may be too strong to say that gravity and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing," Leonard Susskind of Stanford University wrote in a paper in 2017. "But those of us who are paying attention may already sense that the two are inseparable, and that neither makes sense without the other."
That insight, Dr. Susskind and his colleagues hope, could lead to a theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics — quantum gravity — and perhaps explains how the universe began.
God doesn't roll dice (Score:4, Funny)
Just in case you needed more proof that he sucks at being a dungeon master.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he does achieve an impressive level of death, pain and suffering. So if you are into those things....
May explain why so many "leaders" are.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that guy plays favorites, just read his manual. Whoever sucks up to him the most gets all the goodies.
Re: God doesn't roll dice (Score:2)
..and not even that. Plenty of "Job"s who get shat on all their lives with no reward at the end while the bad guys die happy in old age with big bags of money.
It's like the ancient version of a Disney movie (but more foul and gruesome), happily ever after, fairytale shit. Except the real world is nothing like a fairytale. The bad guys often win, the gazelle gets torn apart alive by the lion feeling extreme and unimaginable pain while it happens. The world is cruel and unfair THE END.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that Jobs guy had a pretty good run, ok, the end sucked, but whose doesn't?
Re: God doesn't roll dice (Score:2)
Job got his stuff back, but the Bible fails to mention the millions of "Job"s who don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs is in the Bible now?
Isn't anything sacred to these Apple disciples?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they didn't have to roll on the chargen table, they just picked what they liked.
Re: (Score:3)
Cats are also not Dead and Alive (Score:5, Insightful)
According to quantum mechanics, a subatomic particle like an electron can be anywhere and everywhere at once, and a cat can be both alive and dead until it is observed.
That's literally NOT what Quantum Mechanics says. Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was wrong. Nobody believes that cats can be both alive and dead at the same time - that was literally Schrodinger's entire point. As for a particle being "anywhere and everywhere" at once that's utter crap as well. Under QM particles' have probability distributions and these definitely can and do have zeroes in them.
I don't know about God playing dice but this journalist seems to be playing with psychedelics.
Re:Cats are also not Dead and Alive (Score:5, Funny)
If you think a cat can't be simultanously alive and dead, you probably don't own a cat. Cats are dead when they don't want to move but as soon as a can opener whirrs they most certainly are alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Under QM particles' have probability distributions and these definitely can and do have zeroes in them.
Zero probability doesn't mean something is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
>Zero probability doesn't mean something is impossible.
No, just that it won't ever happen. Ever. I'd like to hear your definition of "impossible". If it means "not possible to happen" then zero probability means impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it means not possible to happen, and yes zero probability events can and do happen. Just like probability 1 events are not guaranteed to happen.
https://www.statlect.com/funda... [statlect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> Zero probability doesn't mean something is impossible.
+1
To be precise : in some probability models where the sample space is not countable, zero probability events happen all the time. https://www.statlect.com/funda... [statlect.com]
Re: Cats are also not Dead and Alive (Score:2)
There is a much less than one but very slightly higher than zero chance that a leprechaun will come to your house and kick you in the shins.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero probability doesn't mean something is impossible.
True, but it does mean that the particle is not "everywhere" because it's not in places where its probability of being there is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it possible that it is in those places? Just unlikely in the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary is complete drivel. I didn't bother to read the article because of this.
This author is clearly not writing to an audience of people who are educated in the basics of physics. The target audience here is that set of people who have no interest in it nor patience for it, and hence little understanding of it, and are easily dazzled by provocative imagery. Statements like "In this version of the cosmos, there is no difference between here and there, cause and effect, inside and outside or perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is complete drivel. I didn't bother to read the article because of this.
And none of this is new. They've been kicking these ideas around since the 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
And, no, hous
Re: (Score:2)
My wife bought a magnetic sign for the dishwasher that you can slide between Clean and Dirty. The first thing I did was slide it half way between the two and pronounce it to be Schrodinger’s Dishwasher since it was both clean and dirty at the same time. She didn’t get it.
Re: Cats are also not Dead and Alive (Score:2)
The only way to tell if we were tracking was to open the door, and possibly ruin a good take.
We are somewhat more professional now.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree and offer this extension of your thoughts:
When scientists spot holes in a theory, they often provide paradoxes that surface as a result of that theory.
Schrödinger presented such regarding the Copenhagen proposal in the format of, "if this then that."
One of the obvious faults with Schrödinger's Cat is that all of the components in the experiment are Classical, not Quantum. Cats, boxes, vials, radioactive elements, and levers, are not quantum particles.
A very unfortunate result of Schrö
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with Copenhagen. Don't confuse ontology (what the cat is) with epistemology (what we can say about the cat). The cat is alive or dead. But until we know that by observation, we can only say that the cat is dead with some probability and alive with some probability. And that's all we can say about the future - because the future does not physically exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, either or. Binary condition.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with Copenhagen.
Yes, there is because Copenhagen says that the cat is in a superposition of both alive and dead states until the box is opened which is clearly nonsense, that was Schrodinger's point.
And that's all we can say about the future - because the future does not physically exist.
But this is not about the future - the cat is in the box in the present the only thing that opening the box does is let you know the current state. That's the key problem with Copenhagen - the "collapse of the wave function" at some fixed point in time when you take the measurement and that's why we really only teach it as a
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not something is "clearly nonsense" depends on your intuitions about the way nature works. As Feynman is quick to point out, quantum mechanics doesn't respect our intuitions. Until you experience/observe/measure the cat in the box, it's state is future to you and doesn't exist until then (cf. Mermin's, "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory").
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He put in motion a system whereby new organisms come to life via the coming together of 2 sets of instructions, which are then copied billions of times with what appears to be no error checking and correcting. Entirely best effort. There are almost always mistakes, some meaningless but some leading to things like a virus that previously infected non-humans being able to infect humans. He had to know thi
Re: (Score:2)
If the dice are loaded, it means he doesn't play dice! It's kind of like recursive GNU is not Unix or something, didn't you already know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Pan seems pretty fun.
Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of it (Score:2, Troll)
...but in all seriousness, if you can't imagine how "gravity and quantum mechanics" can possibly be the same thing, start reading here [wikipedia.org].
Not to say that's necessarily the way to go, but it does give new directions. Essentially, what we could never reconcile -- and still can't -- is the "spooky action at distance" of quantum entanglement / teleportation. Regardless of whether we can actually can use it for superluminal transfer of useful information, or whether General Relativity found a loophole again by requ
Re: (Score:2)
"They're the most complicated puzzles physics has to offer right now, so... it is painstakingly clear that Black Holes and Entangled Particles just have to have the same underlying cause, right? Right?! There's no way in Hell that there could actually be two fundamental mechanisms about physics we don't have any clue about, right? ;-)"
That comment rings a bell. About 1900 there was a consensus that Physics was solved. There were only two things not understood, the results of the Michaelson-Morely experiment
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand quantum entanglement, if we have entangled photons and I measure the the polarization of mine, I've collapsed the wave function (whatever that actually means) of my photon, and I have some information (not complete) about how your measurement will go. If you measure your polarization with an apparatus tilted relative to mine, I still don't know what your measurement can be; all I can do is figure probabilities. Is the wave function really collapsed then?
The classical analogy that I keep
Re: (Score:3)
Is the wave function really collapsed then?
Without going too much into details: yes, it really is, according to our understanding.
This is difficult to understand from entanglement alone, you need to look at quantum teleportation for that. Essentially, teleportation involves two entanglement processes of 3 particles: A, B and X. The latter (X) here is the one with an unknown quantum state that we wish to "teleport" without destroying.
What we do is prepare two entangled particles A and B. One needs to stay "here" and the other needs to get to the dest
Re: (Score:2)
(search for Bell Inequations)
Sorry, that was BS. It's Bell's theorem [wikipedia.org] instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - local hidden variable theories are wrong. The analogy shows that suddenly knowing the outcome of an event a spacewise interval away is not necessarily FTL communication. Thanks for the explication, by the way. I hadn't understood that about quantum teleportation before. However, I don't understand the word "instantaneously" in physics, and haven't since I studied Special Relativity.
Re: (Score:3)
That appears to be a lot of handwavy nonsense.
Re:Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:4, Interesting)
Mach wasn't a physicist.
Actually Wikipedia says he was, but it's my understanding he wasn't primarily a scientist. He was mostly a philosopher with a solid understanding in physics. But if you don't like that formulation of Mach's paradox, maybe you'll prefer this one:
Imagine two spheres -- planets -- made of jelly-goo-ish stuff, in an otherwise empty space -- i.e. they're the only ones around. Far enough apart that they don't crash into one another owing to gravity just yet.
Now you're standing on one of that spheres. The other one is spinning round their common axis, and, owing to the inertia of its own mass, it gets thicker at the belly and flatter at the poles. So far, so good.
Now imagine it's your sphere that's spinning. From where you stand, it still looks like the other one is spinning, but with the difference that now your sphere is thicking up across its equator and flattening at the poles.
So, hand waving or not, please try to answer this: why is your planet undergoing transformation when your observation is that the other one is spinning? Where does this specific incarnation of "inertia" come from? And remember that General Relativity specifically treats all space the same, there's no such thing as an "absolute" direction, position etc in space.
Mach was actually a friend of Einstein, and it was these kinds of discussions with Mach that eventually prompted Einstein to "invent" GR. He also kept claiming, up to the end of his research life, that we wasn't done yet, and that specifically this kind of "where does inertia actually come from" question is still unsolved and must be solved. This must have been the '50 or '60, and by that time, the scientific community accepted GR as being great n stuff and kept celebrating it and essentially telling Einstein to "shush, great work so far, deeply grateful, we'll take it from here."
Re: (Score:3)
But if you don't like that formulation of Mach's paradox, maybe you'll prefer this one:
I'd prefer to see experimental evidence.
there's no such thing as an "absolute" direction, position etc in space.
But there is absolute rotation. Inertial motion is relative. Rotation motion is not.
Michelson and Morley failed to measure absolute linear motion.
Foucault easily measured absolute rotational motion, and high school students repeat his experiment every day.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to see experimental evidence.
It's a Gedankenexperiment. Those aren't designed to convey experimental facts, they're designed to convey understanding.
Part of the trick is: if you could actually build a universe according to our rules of physics, but with nothing but two spheres in it, I bet that that observation would be different from our expectation of what it should be -- which illustrates the point. It's not about actually experimentally observing it, it's about applying what we know should happen, and show that it's actually absurd
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't even skim the Wikipedia article I linked to, did you?
I did. Just before I posted my "handwavy nonsense" comment.
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
I remember reading long ago that something similar was posited by Newton, something about bucket spinning on a rope in a well, it seemed odd to me at the time that such a "basic" thing had not been resolved.
As the article generalizes Mach, "local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe", there is really no reason why that should not be the case. We are really just tabulating patterns we observe and ascribing to those patterns some universal "laws" that come from our head. I
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
I came up with essentially the same paradox without knowing it had been a thing since Newton. My Gedankenexperiment involved measuring the strain in the rod of a dumbbell free floating in space and basically outside any gravitational fields to determine whether it is absolutely rotating around an axis perpendicular to the linking rod or not. It is weird that there would be such a absolute rotation free state. What would fix it ?
After reading numerous explanations not explaining anything it still tickles me
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
Mach wasn't a physicist.
Actually Wikipedia says he was, but it's my understanding he wasn't primarily a scientist. He was mostly a philosopher with a solid understanding in physics.
Oh, and I need to correct myself. It's the same Mach as in "Mach speed", he was a very distinguished scientist.
Re:Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that is an excellent example of "Pseudo-Profound Bullshit".
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you mean my post or the idea of wormholes and quantum entanglement in general.
As far as the idea is concerned, knock yourself out. [arxiv.org] Some of it has made it into serious journals, some hasn't. And it's mostly a theoretical cosmology thing, so please don't boomerang around asking for "experimental evidence". Not there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the quote in your post.
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point of that quote. It's meant to show the absurdity of our own understanding of inertia.
Here's another, alternative formulation of the same principle. [slashdot.org] How would you explain that if you saw such an experiment?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
How would you define the difference between "crap" and a hot topic in physics that hasn't settled yet?
Re: (Score:2)
...or if you mean the Transactional Interpretation itself, well... that one's in pretty good company. Of course you're free to also call people like Feynman "Pseudo-Profound" and offer more masterful attempts at Science yourself.
Send me a link once you have published.
Re: (Score:2)
F'ed up the link. Here it is [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some reading dysfunctionality? I was commenting on "Mach's paradox", rather obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and:
Do you have some reading dysfunctionality?
Yes, I have a bit of an eyesight problem. As in: I sometimes only see words that are there. So many things "obvious" to others are not that obvious to me. :-p
Re: (Score:2)
Along with the entire Earth, apparently. Short - no they are not.
That "paradox" only works if you are totally ignorant of physics. There is no interaction between the stars and your arms.
Re: Whatever they're smoking, they had too much of (Score:2)
That "paradox" only works if you are totally ignorant of physics.
May I kindly remind you that this paradox, and alternative formulations thereof, have been exprrssed by Ernst Mach (as in "Mach (supersonic) speed" and Isaa Newton (as in "look, I just discovered gracity!')?
Each one of these people forgot more of physics by the time they were your age than you (and I for that matter) will ever know. I'm pretty sure it's not their ignorance that confuses you.
Not fighting with himself (Score:4, Insightful)
Einstein had one position on the matter. Other people ultimately deserve credit for quantum theory. It would be more accurate to say the bar fight was between Einstein and Plank. Heck TFS itself says Einstein is in a fight with himself and then proceeds to give a theory by Einstein followed by on by Heisenberg and one by Schrödinger.
Laying the foundation for quantum mechanics is not the development of quantum mechanics anymore than building a CNC milling machine makes you the creator of the automobile engine.
Re:Not fighting with himself (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think it's fair to say the fight was with Max Planck. (I'm only a layman, but I'll dive in here anyway) Planck determined mathematically that the characteristics of black body radiation could be explained if the wavelength of light varied by a discrete number of steps of a particular value that became known as Planck's Constant, rather than being determined by a continuous function as found in classic analytical calculus. A photon of light contained some number of these steps which he called quanta. (See the ultra-violet catastrophe for how this was confounding physicists at the time.) Einstein explained the photoelectric effect using Planck's idea and got the Nobel Prize for it. (Not for any the Special or the General Theory of Relativity.) The person Einstein was really at loggerheads with was Neils Bohr. Supposedly, when Einstein said, "God does not play dice", Bohr replied, "Stop telling God what to do."
The big deal revolved around the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox (often abbreviated to EPR paradox.) A physicist name John Stewart Bell proposed Bell's Theorem to resolve the paradox. It took awhile for the technology to develop to at least partially test Bell's Theorem and the recent Nobel Prize Winners in Physics actually made their bones to some extent on testing it. Bohr seems to be winning the debate about the paradox but one out is Superdeterminism that hasn't been completely eliminated as a possibility yet, so far as I know.
My take is that, if Superdeterminism is true, then the universe is kind of like a Life Program. At the very start everything is determined, but the only way to know what exactly is determined, is to play the game. There's no Apollo like god of prophesy who can look ahead and tell you what it's going to be before it is played. The future is determined, just like the past. The difference is the future is also unknown. So, you don't have free will because everything is determined, but, if you did have free will, I for one can't figure out how you'd know the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that, if Superdeterminism is true, then the universe is kind of like a Life Program. At the very start everything is determined, but the only way to know what exactly is determined, is to play the game.
The problem I have with this is that we really have to bend over backwards to construct a flavor of "determinism" that fits with the Bell inequations.
I like the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics a lot better :-) Essentially it says that quantum mechanics goes not only forward, but also backwards in time, and interactions between quantum-mechanical systems are "transactions" between time-symmetric waves. I like this particularly because (1) it solves a number of intuition problems we have wit
Re: Not fighting with himself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> At the very start everything is determined, but the only way to know what exactly is determined, is to play the game.
A tad oversimplified, although words break down when talking about this stuff.
A more accurate way to say it is that the Universe built in the capacity to surprise itself. Crude matter-constructs can produce art, for instance, using the raw materials of supernova explosions, twigs, and animal hairs. The art is surprisingly good! ;)
You do have free will, in that you have the raw powe
what? (Score:3)
I consider myself smarter than the average bear but seriously, there are some topics I just can't wrap my mind around. Quantum mechanics is their king.
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
âoeI think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.â - Richard Feynman
I gave up on trying to understand quantum mechanics back during the flap over magnetic monopoles. Apparently someone had computed that, if they existed and a composite particle was formed that contained both an electric charge and a magnetic monopole, it would have an extra half-unit of spin compared to the sum of the spins of its components.
This was explained as the a quantum mechanical manifestation of Farr
Re: (Score:2)
Grasping the concept isn't too hard. Understanding it however? Yeah.. No..
Re: (Score:3)
I consider myself smarter than the average bear but seriously, there are some topics I just can't wrap my mind around. Quantum mechanics is their king.
Nobody "gets their head around" QM. The best you can do is understand the maths, and see that QM works.
Of course the maths is really hard, and even if you are in the top 1% aptitude very few get that far.
Re:what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
As an undergrad I crammed for a Quantum Phenomena exam and managed to pass it many years ago. Then promptly forgot everything except the general principles. So I can explain in general terms why the energy levels of an electron around an atom are quantised, and how this relates to the workings of a fluorescent light (it's actually a good example of quantisation in both gas discharge and solid state fluorescence). But I have the same chance of explaining the time independent Shrodinger wave equation as my neighbour's cat does.
So I'd rephrase Feynman's quote as, "Nobody outside of an asylum has managed to internalise the quantum mechanical view of the universe".
Re: (Score:2)
Not if we're 'living' in a simulation, something that would explain all this and more.
Back in high school I used to quip that we were living in a digital simulation and that the quantum numbers were as far as the computer carried the arithmetic.
more insight on it (Score:3)
Discussions on that by people who know something is within comments on a blogpost by P. W., following a comment [columbia.edu] there.
TLDR: It is about toy models that (so far) do not describe this universe.
Here and there (Score:3)
Is fairly obvious from quantum entanglement that the speed of light is not the last word in transmitting state information. Clearly there is some shortcut that the wiring under the board allows. Perhaps like a computer simulation - the developers analogy of choice - a max speed exists in the simulation but the code itself can do what it damn well likes. Quantum mechanics could simply be a manifestation of that - ie it doesnt have to follow the rules that everything else does because operates outside the normal parameters of the universe we're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Is fairly obvious from quantum entanglement that the speed of light is not the last word in transmitting state information.
Not everything that seems "fairly obvious" is true. Perhaps the dodge here is what you intend to mean by "state information" since there is no evidence or theoretical basis to believe quantum entanglement can transmit information (completely unqualified) faster than light. The fact that since you can make a measurement of an entangled particle and get a (random) result then you instantly know the state of the distant entangled one does not imply that anything at all was transmitted between them.
The existenc
Re: Here and there (Score:3)
What you say about entanglement would be true if a state of one particle eg spin, didnt change after its entangled twin had detached. The fact is its state can change and this state change can be seen in the other particle.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a reference that says that collapsing the state of one particle has any effects on the other? I haven't seen any.
Re: Here and there (Score:2)
Pretty much any quantum mechanics book. Feel free to use google.
Re: (Score:2)
More like, if special relativity holds, FTL and time travel are the same thing. If you're unwilling to allow time travel, then, yes, FTL and special relativity are incompatible. If special relativity holds, there is no preferred frame of reference, and FTL in multiple frames of reference can go backwards into time. Clearly, time travel implies FTL, since we can send a package to Alpha C in a way that takes a thousand years, and have it hop back nine hundred and ninety-nine.
This applies to anything FTL
Re: Here and there (Score:2)
Relativity holds for travel through space. It says nothing about any possible short cuts such as wormholes or even deeper into the wiring of the universe. Relativity assumes spacetime is the lowest level of reality. This is an article of faith, not proven fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like wormholes and deeper wiring?
Re: (Score:2)
You've heard of the word "postulate" I assume? Point is relativtiy and quantum mechanics don't mix. You can either put your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear you" or you can look for the reasons why. A reason might be the relativity isn't the last word.
Re: (Score:3)
The existence of Special Relativity and the extreme precision to which its accuracy has been confirmed directly indicate that information cannot travel faster than light since SR can be derived based on that one assumption. It information can travel faster than light SR would not be true, but since it is, you can't.
As I understood it, SR comes from the pair of assumptions that:
- There is no preferred "at rest" inertial frame of reference. Any constant velocity (less than the speed of light) is as "
Boris Podolsky (Score:2)
whoosh (Score:2)
Inner lives of black holes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wachowski Theorem (Score:2)
Science (Score:2)
Science article for junior high students.
Mind bender (Score:2)
I once heard somewhere that time was a precipitate of gravity. Like gravity waves were a weather front moving through space, squeezing time from the space fabric. Fanciful and perhaps fallacious, but a neat mental image.
Which god, exactly? (Score:2)
There have been roughly 8000 to 12000 gods, so far, throughout recorded history. What about black transvestite Jesus, with pierced nipples? No? Are you sure?
There are no coincidences (Score:2)
Brain broth (Score:2)
The TFS sounds like a thick batch of brain broth, the kind crazy and unemployable people come up with.
Re: (Score:3)
So this is where Truth Social is located?
Re: (Score:2)
It's most likely black holes all the way down, I'm afraid. And all the way back up too. We're not at the top of the stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:THIS IS A TEST (Score:4, Insightful)
The simulation hypothesis is probably not correct for our universe. It is a mathematical fact from the adS-CFT correspondence. But we don't live in anti-deSitter space. Put another way, mathematics is not physics. To put it more mundanely, there is not outside or surface for the simulation (of the bulk) to live. It is merely a mathematical correspondence between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what any of that is, but any way you slice it, Simulation thought experiment (does not rise to the level of a hypothesis) is wrong. If you really study Buddhism, you'll find Simulation is like a trival subset of their concept of the universe. If there's a conscious unified field and the entire universe is akin to its thoughts, it's just a bad semantic argument to call that a simulation, much as it would be wrong to call a human being's thoughts a simulation
Re: What does empty space consist of? (Score:2)
Define illusion. If the universe behaves in a 3D fashion then it is for all purposes 3 dimensional.
Re: (Score:2)
In a decade long thought experiment, I came to conclude that the universe consists of a collection of two dimensional planes that are the possible quantum states
Now you just need to devise an experiment to falsify your hypothesis.