Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#91

Post by meindnoch »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69
nilkn wrote: post #67

"Einstein cast gravity not as a force but as the geometric bending of space and time. In a popular analogy, the fabric of space-time is like the flat expanse of a mattress, and a massive object like a star is like a bowling ball sitting on top. The weight of the bowling ball compresses the mattress, forming a dimple — matter tells space-time how to curve. In this analogy, a planet is like a smaller ball. If it rolls…

Could you be more specific? How does bending time cause the Earth to orbit the Sun?

It changes the geodesic that Earth follows, from a straight line (in 3D space) to a curved one (an ellipse).

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#92

Post by lubujackson »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69
nilkn wrote: post #67

"Einstein cast gravity not as a force but as the geometric bending of space and time. In a popular analogy, the fabric of space-time is like the flat expanse of a mattress, and a massive object like a star is like a bowling ball sitting on top. The weight of the bowling ball compresses the mattress, forming a dimple — matter tells space-time how to curve. In this analogy, a planet is like a smaller ball. If it rolls…

Could you be more specific? How does bending time cause the Earth to orbit the Sun?

Imagine you are driving in a car coming up parallel to the sun on your left. Time moves a bit faster for you on the left side than the right side. This slight speedup makes your left side traverse space faster than the right side, which causes a slight drift to the left (and also makes you spin).

Now just add massive scale and distances.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#93

Post by canjobear »

bavell wrote: post #81
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be more specific? How does bending time cause the Earth to orbit the Sun?

This was a helpful visualization: https://youtu.be/U_sI9agWmEw?si=MItDfnTx1-oT_qX_

Also very well explained by PBS Spacetime here https://youtu.be/UKxQTvqcpSg

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#94

Post by an0malous »

dwroberts wrote: post #12
sigmoid10 wrote: post #3

>In holographic theories, physicists may have traced the pliability of space-time to its quantum roots ...ah yes holography again. Not to say that all these insights from it are completely worthless, but unless we actually find a holographic dual of our universe instead of AdS spaces (which are the opposite of our universe if anything), this whole field is starting to feel more like a jobs program for mathematicians…

> this whole field is starting to feel more like a jobs program for mathematicians out of new ideas. So sick of seeing phrases like this. Science is not business. It is not about producing results that you personally think are important. It is understanding the nature of the universe for the sake of it.

> It is not about producing results that you personally think are important. It is understanding the nature of the universe for the sake of it.

Is this actually stated somewhere by the institutions that take taxpayer money for this research, or just your opinion?

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#96

Post by jfyi »

lioeters wrote: post #6

Charm, quark, colors, time crystals, holographs.. And now, magic. Don't worry Einstein, no spooky action at a distance here, it's just magical. > The more non-Clifford gates you need to produce a quantum state, the more magical that state is. The group found that the particles were highly magical. ..They showed that magic gave space its springiness . Magic, in other words, is connected to space’s ability to bend. At…

It's older than that. Atoms have neither orbitals, nor shells. Neither describes a probability field at various energy levels surrounding the nucleus.

Analogies aid understanding, even if on an abstract level.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#97

Post by yubblegum »

tsimionescu wrote: post #51
yubblegum wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean post quantum, theoretical physics. Up to 19th and early 20th, physicists somehow knew how to name things. It is possible that the nature of the beast itself has changed and it attracts a different kind of mindsets ...

Color charge and the strange and charm quarks are not post-quantum theoretical physics, are they? There's also other areas where a current of picking simple names instead of greek/latin terms was popular for a while at least - Shannon named the smallest unit of information a "bit" after all.

That stuff is after Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bohr. When I mentioned quantum mechanics, these are the physicists I had in mind.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#99

Post by djsamseng »

lubujackson wrote: post #92
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be more specific? How does bending time cause the Earth to orbit the Sun?

Imagine you are driving in a car coming up parallel to the sun on your left. Time moves a bit faster for you on the left side than the right side. This slight speedup makes your left side traverse space faster than the right side, which causes a slight drift to the left (and also makes you spin). Now just add massive scale and distances.

If the sun is on my left, doesn’t that mean time moves a bit slower on my left and the slowdown on the left means I’ve traveled less on my left side? Thus I turn left toward the sun.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#100

Post by bawolff »

an0malous wrote: post #58
bawolff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. It’s so ironic how you’ll call it bullshit and link to some pop culture skeptic idea with no scientific backing to try and undermine an idea in defense of “real science” > Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone…

I'm disagreeing with the notion that someone "who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us". History suggests otherwise.

Surely you must appreciate the irony when your primary argument is an appeal to authority, while on the other hand you dismiss everyone who is unconvinced as "dogmatic".

As for Penrose's specific ideas, i'm not familiar enough with them or the field to make an informed judgement. Hence i would defer to other experts in that field, who as far as i understand are unconvinced. However, the fact he previously won a nobel does not lead me to give him any more credence than i would anyone else. If anything its a negative signal.

That said, if i was going to bite:

> Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason

The onus is on Penrose to show consciousness is non-computational. Preferably with some sort of experiment (or are we in the realm of pure philosophy here? Arguing how many angels are dancing on the pin). Science is about creating hypotheses and testing them. Admiteddly im not super well-read on this topic, but i don't think this theory has yielded testable predictions not explainable by other theories that have been verified.

Post reply on HN