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

151–160 of 191 posts

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

#151

Post by m-s-y »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #66
Terr_ wrote: post #2

> a measure of quantumness known as “magic.” This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line... > They had worked out a way of running software on a classical computer that would mimic a quantum task. When it comes to using a regular computer to mimic (read: fake) the execution of an exotic program/API for nonexistnet future hardware, I highly recommend the humorously titled talk: "Temporally…

> This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line... You're a little late here, "magic" is already a fairly well known term in quantum computing literature. There's "magic states" and protocols for "magic state distillation" and "magic state injection", there's "shallow magic depth circuits", etc.

> "magic" is already a fairly well known term in quantum computing literature

which is fine, but the point is still valid. who looked at the state of science education in today's world and though that "magic" was a word that belonged anywhere near legitimate discourse? and more importantly WHY?

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

#152

Post by throwaway27448 »

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…

I'm having a bit of an issue teasing apart space and time when it comes to reasoning what bending time even means without space, let alone comparing the magnitude of the two. They're inextricably linked—as I understand it, both space and time can be seen as a magnitude of causality.

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

#153

Post by nilkn »

twoodfin wrote: post #126
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…

What’s an example where it would be accurate to say 99%+ of the interaction is from the bending of space?

That is a harder question than it sounds. The answer might actually be "there are no such examples", but I'm not confident enough to jump to that with any certainty by any means. Near and inside black holes, there can certainly be significant warping of space, but it's unlikely to be near exclusive warping of space.

The only plausible example I can think of that isn't purely theoretical / speculative would be gravitational waves.

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

#154

Post by canjobear »

vardump wrote: post #138
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…

Does this mean universe can only support certain amount of energy (or motion) in a certain volume?

Close. One approach is to conjecture that the universe only supports a limited about of information per unit surface area.

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

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

#156

Post by antonvs »

russdill wrote: post #124
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this cause a point particle to accelerate towards the sun? Must be something about the gradient, but how does the gradient of time cause you to curve towards the sun?

A point particle? You mean that useful mathematical approximation for excitations in a field?

No, the actual point particle described by Bohmian mechanics.

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

#157

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

That’s very interesting, but the analogy is not wrong, because the mattress is analogous to space-time, not just space. Essentially it is a 2D analogy for a 3+1D reality.

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

#158

Post by bawolff »

an0malous wrote: post #133
bawolff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Hence i would defer to other experts in that field, who as far as i understand are unconvinced. This is also an appeal to authority. Plus I’m not arguing that Penrose is correct, I’m arguing that it’s unscientific to call a theory bullshit because it sounds “woo” or “new age.” It should be debated on its merits, and yes I did make an appeal to authority for the same reasons you did: it’s a useful heuristic if we do…

> So you’re saying that being a Nobel laureate is a counter signal for scientific credibility?

A very mild one, but yes. Particularly for things outside the field they got the nobel for. I think this applies to fame in general.

> I mean there’s the whole field of mathematics and most of modern physics that use mathematical proofs instead of experiments, including the main article this thread is on

Math is not science. It does not deal with things that depend on the real world. Consciousness is a phenomenon that allegedly actually exists in the real world. It is not a polynomial.

I dont see the relavence. Penrose didn't provide a mathamatical proof. In fact from first principles it seems like any pure math proof of properties of conciousness would be impossible.

> I’m arguing that it’s unscientific to call a theory bullshit because it sounds “woo” or “new age.”

Taken literally, sure i would agree with you. However usually when people make claims like this, what they are really saying is that its not a scientific theory so there is nothing to discuss.

What does penrose's theory predict? Is it testable? Has anyone tested it? If the answer is no then there is no merits to debate.

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

#159

Post by colordrops »

zehaeva wrote: post #129
colordrops wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never liked the mattress analogy, because if gravity is the bending of the mattress, what is pulling the ball down the slope?

It's just an analogy, you're not supposed to think too deeply about them. The main take away for a lay person is that _like_ the mattress space is being deformed. That's where the analogy stops. Taking it further, like with all analogies, breaks the analogy. If the analogy was a perfect one, then it would just be the reason and not an analogy. My main gripe is how hard for most people it is to extrapolate that deform…

I get that, I'm just wondering if there's a more effective analogy. Maybe there isn't.

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

#160

Post by ikrenji »

seanhunter wrote: post #53
apothegm wrote: post #14

That is an incredibly unfortunate term to use for the phenomenon.

I agree, although there is a long tradition of terrible naming in the sciences. One of the most boring and yet egregious examples imo is "Random Variable". So named because - they aren't random and - they aren't variables.[1] A "random variable" is actually a measurable deterministic function from the set of possible outcomes of some experiment to the real numbers. But you can see why the name "random variable" is co…

"your child has cancer because of a mutation in his sonic hedgehog gene"
Post reply on HN