Do I understand this right that if the conjecture can be proved correct and the remaining issue about time gets solved we effectively have a grand unified theory?
The quantum source of space-time
11–20 of 124 posts
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this all a round about way of saying you don't believe in quantum entanglement? Because that would be simpler and I wouldn't bother arguing.
You know it's all just an artifact of an expression written on paper, right?
What do you mean by that?
(Obviously you don't mean necessarily literally on paper)
Do you claim that the predictions that are made about what is observed are false, or that the interpretation is wrong, or?
Surely you don't mean that by interpreting it in a particular way, it causes different things to happen, so I can't think of anything other than those two.
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#13Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way. Big deal. If I have a bag of coins, and I take out all of the copper coins, it's not very mysterious that the bag now contains only silver coins, no matter whether I hide it under my bed, or in the freezer, or hang it out the window. Y…
You didn't even give a decent troll argument against entanglement. What you should've said is that: "I have two bags of coins, one full of silver and one full of copper. I have no idea which is which. I put one bag across town, hidden under a rock. I open up the other bag at home, it's all copper. Thus I know the other bag is all silver. So amazing." In your scenario, you made an observation of what was inside the bags, which is not allowed. It's still a troll argument though, because entanglement is arcane as heck!
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also went through a phase where quantum entanglement seemed mundane and easily explained. However, I realized that this was merely because I was taking the analogies too literally. The key difference between a bag of coins and a microscopic quantum system is that the contents of the bag before being observed is unknown , whereas the quantum state is actually indeterminate . By observing one entangled particle, you…
By observing one entangled particle, you force the other to also take on a definite state. ...on paper.
In the lab
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#15If any two particles are connected by entanglement, the physicists suggested, then they are effectively joined by a wormhole. And vice versa: the connection that physicists call a wormhole is equivalent to entanglement. They are different ways of describing the same underlying reality.
In other words, there's no such thing as "spooky action at a distance", because with particles joined by a wormhole there is no distance between them?
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#16Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way. Big deal. If I have a bag of coins, and I take out all of the copper coins, it's not very mysterious that the bag now contains only silver coins, no matter whether I hide it under my bed, or in the freezer, or hang it out the window. Y…
Read up on it more, if you care: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3158/why-is-quant... http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126622/quantum-en...
The choice between locality and realism can be easily summed up as thus:
Either you believe the state exists but is unknown, and
cannot be known until measured,
or, you believe that you know the state does not exist,
and materializes upon measurement.
If you're satisfied that their might be multiple past states which could all produce the same result, determining the current state, then you can safely ignore these semantic debates, about whether there is a concrete-but-unknown value, or whether the present value remains uninitialized and undefined.
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#17Here's a recent lecture by Erik Verlinde in which he tries to explain both dark energy and dark matter using entropic gravity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYXt3Xu3xI
I'm not a physicist, but he seems to be invoking similar ideas to Raamsdonk: that spacetime and gravity are emergent properties that boil down to entanglement somehow. But the loop quantum gravity people have been saying something like that for ages. And Stephen Wolfram and Konrad Zuse etc. And we have people like Lubos Motl on the other hand to ridicule all of the above.
Anyone able to give a big picture overview of what's been happening the last few years in this somewhat rarefied world? Who are we, the intelligent lay public, to trust?
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it's all just an artifact of an expression written on paper, right?
What do you mean by that? (Obviously you don't mean necessarily literally on paper) Do you claim that the predictions that are made about what is observed are false, or that the interpretation is wrong, or? Surely you don't mean that by interpreting it in a particular way, it causes different things to happen, so I can't think of anything other than those two.
I think he means that the "entanglement" as understood by general public, i.e. as "I do something to particle A, and suddenly particle B changes" is an invalid way of reading the math; you didn't do anything to B, you merely figured out, by interacting with A, in which world you're in.
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
By observing one entangled particle, you force the other to also take on a definite state. ...on paper.
In the lab http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189
We therefore reject the hypothesis that local realism
governs our experiment.
They did not prove that they changed an existing state.
They merely decided that the state was not present, until measured.
They decided a thing was not visible until looked at, because that makes more sense on paper.
Re: The quantum source of space-time
#20If any two particles are connected by entanglement, the physicists suggested, then they are effectively joined by a wormhole. And vice versa: the connection that physicists call a wormhole is equivalent to entanglement. They are different ways of describing the same underlying reality. In other words, there's no such thing as "spooky action at a distance", because with particles joined by a wormhole there is no dista…
I think many theories start off at "spooky action at a distance." Imagine what Newton thought about how gravity works - two massive objects affecting each other for no apparent reason: spooky action over a distance.