Interesting, something related to this thread...
https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?
- Thread starter Hotdog
- Start date
Being caught shoplifting will have legal, career, and personal consequences. You may not get caught, but the probability of a negative outcome is greater than if you never shoplifted.
I haven't watched the lecture, so don't know what you mean by "medium-free environment". But if an object travels faster than light, then it's easy to show that there will be inertial reference frames were the endpoints of the object's world-line are reversed. I.e. the object arrived before the object left. So ftl travel is necessarily time travel (in the right reference frame). And if you have time travel, you can of course construct situations that lead to legitimate paradoxes.
Sure, but that was basically my point--that negative actions lead to additional negative effects just like positive actions lead to positive effects. So each person will have the same amount of positive vs negative spread between their total many worlds selves. You were the one that talked about negative actions leading to death and hence a net loss of negativity.
You keep ignoring the fact that your choices are not random. When you go to a store, there is a large probability you'll buy something. There is another probability that you will decide not to buy anything. There is a much smaller probability that you will shop lift. There is a smaller probability still that you will decide to drop your pants and take a dump on the floor. If these things have a finite probability in your wavefunction, then they will happen. But NOT WITH EQUAL FREQUENCY. It all depends on your brain and the knowledge you gathered through your experiences. So your goal should be to acquire as much positive knowledge as possible (knowledge that increases probability of good decision). So in addition to the elimination process that naturally accompanies bad decisions, the multiverse allows for a kind of control over your global self through the exercise of good choice locally.
The point was that you could communicate information using quantum entanglement, and the creation and destruciton of an interference pattern in one direction to create and destroy an interference pattern on the other direction. Since quantum entanglement is being used, there is no object carrying the communication (what I ment by "no medium"), and hence no object traveling faster than c. So, you'd still have observational peculiarities like see the message arrive before it was sent in some reference frames, but no time travel and similar paradoxes.
I haven't read the preceding conversation, so this might have been covered, but flt communication is impossible. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that c only applies to accelerating objects. How would you use entanglement to transmit information? If you have two entangled particles, and you collapse the function by measuring, say, the spin of the first particle, then the second particle will collapse to a random value of either 1/2 or -1/2. Without knowing to what state the first particle collapsed, you know nothing about how the second will. All you can get is randomness.
Last edited:
The idea was that if there were a stream of particles, the information would not be what the value was, but only that there was or was not a collapsed wave function, from my understanding. The actual collapsed value would be irrelevant.
I have no idea if that would work or not.
And how would you tell the first particle's collapse has occurred? By making a measurement, which collapses the second particle's function anyways.
So, if you measure the first particle, and collapse it's wave function so that the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment disappears, there would still be an interference pattern in the second particle's movement?
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Thanks for all the contributions to the thread. Im reading it all. I dont have a ton to contribute in the technical sense though. Which is why I haven't posted much. But it is all very interesting. Ive mostly just watched a lot of discussions and lectures on youtube. So Im still learning. I havent taken any classes on it. Been thinking I want to go back to school to learn more about this.
Let's picture the experiment. You entangle two photons, photon A heading toward a double slit, and photon B heading in the opposite direction. Now you have two choices. You can measure photon B before photon A reaches the double slit, which will collapse the function describing both waves, breaking the entanglement. Photon A will then self-interfere normally when it goes through both slits, and you'll get the diffraction pattern. Or you can calculate it so that you measure particle B after A passes through the slits, which will mean it has already self-interfered, and you'll get the diffraction pattern.
Let me make sure you understand how the double slit works. Each time you fire a particle at a barrier with two slits, the particle-wave will diffract through both slits just as any wave would. The diffraction will create the usual peaks and troughs in the wave propagating through space (constructive and destructive interference). These peaks and troughs represent the probabilities of where the photon will end up once it hits the detector (well, more precisely it's amplitudes. Probability is those amplitudes squared). As more and more particles are fired, they all self-interfere, giving us the end results with the interference pattern. So the pattern only exists once you measure many particles and see the pattern. You can't tell anything without measurement.