Quantum Theory Verses Relativity.

[Shadowprophet]

I know right?

So let's just jump into this and see what happens. You guys will want the short Version of this for the sake of discussion, But General Relativity and Quantum Feild Theory can't really be friends. It's a little-known fact that Quantum Feild Theory has been literally Gunning to take Relativities place for nearly 20 years. The Problem?

Granulation. See, In Einsteins General relativity. The universe is perceived as Smooth, Very much like A Kardashian,, But Quantum field theory predicts That the universe Granulates. That it isn't smooth at all, That it's actually kind of rough and spotty. The problem is. Relativity has given us so much to work with. But. Quantum Physics is really shining right now, A betting man. Would Suggest that in the next decade, Relativity May be Redacted or amended, But It looks like everything is coming up Quantum right now.

I know A great many Will Stand by relativity with its smooth finish. Why wouldn't they? It's a great theory. But the Truth is. This is a ringside seat to one of Physics greatest boxing matches in modern times.




I think it's best to keep an open mind. But I'm also leaning toward Quantum mechanics. And I won't lie. I lean toward them only because I've spent an impossible amount of time studying it, It's not that I wouldn't give it up if I had too. It's that Experiments like the Dual slit. Do suggest that the universe does function as a wave. What do you guys think? Is Quantum physics the product of too many episodes of star trek and really bad Dungeons and dragons Fetish? Or is relativity Truly Now, The Old being Replaced by the new?

 

[humanoidlord]

It's that Experiments like the Dual slit

that is actually proof that he universe is a simulation

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Granulation. See, In Einsteins General relativity. The universe is perceived as Smooth, Very much like A Kardashian,

Kim, Khloe, or Kourtney?

I know A great many Will Stand by relativity with its smooth finish. Why wouldn't they? It's a great theory. But the Truth is. This is a ringside seat to one of Physics greatest boxing matches in modern times.

If history is any indicator, both theories will be subsumed by a larger theory, so neither one will "win." They're both going down, lol. [Also, they're both roughly the same age so it's not an "old vs. new" battle - they're both pretty old.]

that is actually proof that he universe is a simulation

No. Lordy.

There are so many different credible interpretations of the double-slit experiment that it's mind-boggling. Therefore no interpretation can claim it as "proof."

 

[humanoidlord]

No. Lordy.

There are so many different credible interpretations of the double-slit experiment that it's mind-boggling. Therefore no interpretation can claim it as "proof."

but its a very plausible theory that would also explain all paranormal phenomena

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

but its a very plausible theory that would also explain all paranormal phenomena

"Plausible," eh? Hmmm...which seems more likely...that the apparently infinite universe is real...or that there's some kind of system simulating an infinite universe....? Seems to me that it would take infinite processing power to simulate an infinite universe, which would take another infinite universe to simulate this one.

What's the opposite of Occam's razor?

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, what's the difference between a "real" universe and a "simulated" universe? They both operate by rules (physical laws), so how does a simulation actually explain anything? [Note: Elon Musk is not a physicist - people seem to forget that]

 

[Shadowprophet]

"Plausible," eh? Hmmm...which seems more likely...that the apparently infinite universe is real...or that there's some kind of system simulating an infinite universe....? Seems to me that it would take infinite processing power to simulate an infinite universe, which would take another infinite universe to simulate this one.

What's the opposite of Occam's razor?

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, what's the difference between a "real" universe and a "simulated" universe? They both operate by rules (physical laws), so how does a simulation actually explain anything? [Note: Elon Musk is not a physicist - people seem to forget that]

I think simulated is a stretch or play for drama on words from those people who want to spread the theory in a viral way. Knowing people would react negatively to the idea of a simulated universe. Simulated, or the idea of a simulated universe is an incredible stretch of the imagination, in my thinking, This would only change our understanding of matter at the subatomic level, Not really change reality as people think it would.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

I think simulated is a stretch or play for drama on words from those people who want to spread the theory in a viral way. Knowing people would react negatively to the idea of a simulated universe. Simulated, or the idea of a simulated universe is an incredible stretch of the imagination, in my thinking, This would only change our understanding of matter at the subatomic level, Not really change reality as people think it would.

Yeah, but what bugs me about it is the origin problem. It attempts to explain the origin of our universe as a simulation, but it doesn't explain the origin of that other universe that's doing the simulation. So what's the point? What does the simulation hypothesis actually explain? Nothing. It's just another pig wearing lipstick, imo.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Yeah, but what bugs me about it is the origin problem. It attempts to explain the origin of our universe as a simulation, but it doesn't explain the origin of that other universe that's doing the simulation. So what's the point? What does the simulation hypothesis actually explain? Nothing. It's just another pig wearing lipstick, imo.

There was a theory. My problem is my memory isn't perfect, in fact, it's not really great, So I don't remember its name, Ochams Razor maybe? But the theory was. There will be things in this universe. some knowledge that will always defy human comprehension. Basically, The theory stated. Human beings can't possibly possess the intellect to truly fully comprehend the universe. I wish I could remember that theories name.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

There was a theory. My problem is my memory isn't perfect, in fact, it's not really great, So I don't remember its name, Ochams Razor maybe? But the theory was. There will be things in this universe. some knowledge that will always defy human comprehension. Basically, The theory stated. Human beings can't possibly possess the intellect to truly fully comprehend the universe. I wish I could remember that theories name.

Occam's razor is a guiding principle for the scientific method that states basically that the simplest explanation is usually the right one, but more technically it's about formulating hypotheses conservatively.

It seems reasonable that our little monkey brains can't comprehend the entire universe. But we may be able to comprehend its physical laws. We seem to have made a lot of progress in that direction over the last few hundred years, so I expect that trend to continue, and I'm optimistic that one day we'll understand all of the basic physical laws and how they relate to each other. Or maybe not. But it's in our nature to keep trying so I say we run with it.

 

[pepe]

Inner space me.

I'll take a note book and pen. To understand them you have to become one, religiously.

Time can be anything you want it to be as it is localised to the individual and has no collective meaning..

Alzheimer's will cause a loss of time reference completely. Memories are reference points. No forward, no backward, just the here and now.

So it could just be that we have humanised the timing we observe and have created the very thing we seek to unravel.

Human beings can't possibly possess the intellect to truly fully comprehend the universe. I wish I could remember that theories name.

Agnostum physics.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Agnostum physics.

Well, I mean, While I don't know if that's the name exactly, You're not wrong though, lol,

and that has to count for a lot bro lol

 

[Shadowprophet]

Occam's razor is a guiding principle for the scientific method that states basically that the simplest explanation is usually the right one, but more technically it's about formulating hypotheses conservatively.

It seems reasonable that our little monkey brains can't comprehend the entire universe. But we may be able to comprehend its physical laws. We seem to have made a lot of progress in that direction over the last few hundred years, so I expect that trend to continue, and I'm optimistic that one day we'll understand all of the basic physical laws and how they relate to each other. Or maybe not. But it's in our nature to keep trying so I say we run with it.

Hey Thomas, I was thinking. Is it possible? That Granulation, could hint toward cosmic web theory?

I mean, To me, This fits granulation, But, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this.

 

[CasualBystander]

Well...

The problem is quantum theory works well at the atomic level.

But the bulk effects (like gravity) don't emerge from the equations.

Relativity deals with bulk effects.

When I was in school the Schrodinger wave equation had only been applied to the hydrogen atom because nobody wanted to spend the time and compute power to apply it to something more complex.

http://www.qcri.or.jp/pdfs/JCP.127.224104.PDF

They computed the helium atom in 2007.

At that pace they will get to uranium sometime in the next dozen millennia.

Automated equation solving is the only way it will ever happen.

Then you have to go to solving two atom interactions.

There needs to be a revolutionary change in approach to get the macro and subpico levels of physics to merge.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

http://www.qcri.or.jp/pdfs/JCP.127.224104.PDF

They computed the helium atom in 2007.

At that pace they will get to uranium sometime in the next dozen millennia.

Automated equation solving is the only way it will ever happen.

Then you have to go to solving two atom interactions.

There needs to be a revolutionary change in approach to get the macro and subpico levels of physics to merge.

We do need a unified field theory.

But I don't expect that theory (when we eventually discover it) to make the wave equations any easier to solve. There are some ways to use approximate equations to get estimates more quickly. But I think that this is where @Black Angus is right to be excited: quantum computing and AI are going to make these calculations much, much faster, and extremely precise. My hunch is that this dawning computing revolution will throw open the door to metamaterials engineering at the quantum level which will bring gravitational technology within reach.

The metamaterial sample that Lue Elizondo delivered to doctors Puthoff and Davis recently (that's my take on the latest developments anyway), may be exactly that type of technology - a macroscopic sample comprised of atomically aligned isotopes, specifically engineered at the quantum level to amplify key features of the stress-energy tensor to produce practical gravitational field effects for propulsion applications.

Hey Thomas, I was thinking. Is it possible? That Granulation, could hint toward cosmic web theory?

I mean, To me, This fits granulation, But, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this.

The cosmic web isn't a theory - it's an observed empirical fact, specifically, the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

I posted a link to a paper in the Time Travel thread (Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time), that links cosmic structure to the flow of time.

 

[APIGuy]

It's not either or. We have two very good theories that cover entirely different domains. They only disagree at the level of the unimaginably tiny, hot, and dense. There had been a lot of work going on for about 80 years to unite the two, and it has frustrated the finest minds. In the meantime, there is a lot of work that can be done without a theory of quantum gravity.

 

[Shadowprophet]

The cosmic web isn't a theory - it's an observed empirical fact, specifically, the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

I posted a link to a paper in the Time Travel thread (Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time), that links cosmic structure to the flow of time.

Nice

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

In the meantime, there is a lot of work that can be done without a theory of quantum gravity.

That's true, but the really exciting stuff happens when we understand how to develop gravitational field technology, because at that point we'll be able to figure out how to build our own UFOs and start sending manned missions to other star systems in a jiffy. And I suspect that we'll see radical new forms of energy technology that will end our dependence on fossil fuel once and for all.

Given the myriad vectors of global crisis converging upon our civilization as we speak, I'd say that there's a great urgency for achieving this technological and economic revolution asap.

 

[humanoidlord]

"Plausible," eh? Hmmm...which seems more likely...that the apparently infinite universe is real...or that there's some kind of system simulating an infinite universe....? Seems to me that it would take infinite processing power to simulate an infinite universe, which would take another infinite universe to simulate this one.

What's the opposite of Occam's razor?

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, what's the difference between a "real" universe and a "simulated" universe? They both operate by rules (physical laws), so how does a simulation actually explain anything? [Note: Elon Musk is not a physicist - people seem to forget that]

a simulated universe means that we can glitch it out or break it, wich has some interesting ramifications

 

[humanoidlord]

Yeah, but what bugs me about it is the origin problem. It attempts to explain the origin of our universe as a simulation, but it doesn't explain the origin of that other universe that's doing the simulation. So what's the point? What does the simulation hypothesis actually explain? Nothing. It's just another pig wearing lipstick, imo.

i like to look at things not looking at their simplicity and more at the implications they have.
for example it would be way easier for a cosmic trickster entity to operate in a simulated universe to a real one
also it would explain various paranormal phenomenas, most obviously time slips

 

[nivek]

a cosmic trickster entity

Fortunately a creature such as that lives only in fantasy and science fiction...

...