Is the Universe a

how many times are you going to lie about this fc.
I do not twist anything. I quote scientists, present papers and videos to support what I say.
its only twisted if you are too ignorant to understand how finely tuned some of the constants in the standard model are.

you and stu have been trying to pin me with your lie for years.
my response has always been... my argument about fine tuning is stated below.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Quote from futurecurrents:

He may not understand it well, who does?, but at least he doesn't perversely twist the science to support a preordained ideology like you do.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

how many times are you going to lie about this fc.
I do not twist anything. I quote scientists, present papers and videos to support what I say.
its only twisted if you are too ignorant to understand how finely tuned the standard model of physics is or... if you do not understand that... then you should watch this.



<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
More...

No he doesn't. The Koch bros say so.
 
Here's one
It's a bit long but it's interesting as Susskind presents in the form of analogy and metaphor.

You need skip to 40.50 to get onto the hologram analogy being used in science and of course by Susskind , not to mean the universe is an actual hologram, but as he indicates, a representation of the mathematics.

At around 48:40 Susskind also uses a fish analogy , "another fishy story"
so you may need keep this in mind ....
Quote from jem:
update... he stole it.
i saw the exact analogy in a book on google books.
More...
:D:D
 
Quote from stu:

Thanks Ricter. :)


I like that one as it tends to explain the position as it has been proven. Essentially to do with the paradox of not being possible to both measure and observe quantum systems without altering their fundamental state.

Einstein (with others) described the situation with a different analogy before knowing the reality which further science developed. That was on the lines of closed boxes placed at opposite ends of the universe which both held correlated quantum states (simplistically say - same source photons), so that when the boxes were opened precisely at the exact same moment , they would instantaneously transfer information to each other to decide their state - whether they would be a particle or a wave.

Einstein thought that to be impossible as it would violate the basic law of physics. The information being instantaneously exchanged would have to travel faster than light itself.
Later of course this came to be shown incorrect, as the science behind entanglement became confirmed .

Holographic universe in scientific terms is not a description to say the universe is an actual hologram. The fundamental principles and characteristics of an interconnected wholeness at its fundamental level are the feature of holograms and was the inspiration in developing proposals for understanding the most primary and basic state of the universe.

The principal is that the universe, now in a dispersed state, is still directly connected to its fundamental primary level , as is the case with holographs where orders of reality are hidden from each other but are directly interconnected and interact. So as with the duality of light, it being either a wave or particle is hidden as a quantum system, and the way it is observed determines how the system will unfold.

More...


Good post stu. That clears up the hologram thing for me a bit. But if it's a hologram then it must be from a computer and computers are designed and if they are designed then there must be designer and he must be God. That's all jem was trying to say :).

One of these days I must dive back into this quantum stuff and get it more clearly in my head. One thing I still don't get is how merely the act of observing changes the state. I don't have problem with the entanglement principle, but idea that merely looking at something changes it bugs me.
 
I was not trying to say anything as I have no preference for digital over analog. I was just linking to info. (for instance I prefer digital video but I prefer analog music recordings. As far as photos I do not have enough experience with the high end to have a preference.)
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Good post stu. That clears up the hologram thing for me a bit. But if it's a hologram then it must be from a computer and computers are designed and if they are designed then there must be designer and he must be God. That's all jem was trying to say :).

One of these days I must dive back into this quantum stuff and get it more clearly in my head. One thing I still don't get is how merely the act of observing changes the state. I don't have problem with the entanglement principle, but idea that merely looking at something changes it bugs me.
More...
The way I understand it is, the mathematics of this view of the universe resembles the mathematics of holograms. If you don't understand the mathematics, you cannot understand how the universe is a hologram but not actually a hologram. ; )
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Good post stu. That clears up the hologram thing for me a bit. But if it's a hologram then it must be from a computer and computers are designed and if they are designed then there must be designer and he must be God. That's all jem was trying to say :).

One of these days I must dive back into this quantum stuff and get it more clearly in my head. One thing I still don't get is how merely the act of observing changes the state. I don't have problem with the entanglement principle, but idea that merely looking at something changes it bugs me.
More...
Thanks fc.
In regard to quantum entanglement ie particles that are said to be correlated with each other, they require some form of light to be observed. That's basically the problem. As soon as you observe them the light you need interferes with their quantum state. As Susskind says in the video, it is one of the frustrating things about quantum mechanics. The thing you need to observe the thing you want to observe, will effect the thing you want to observe.
Fortunately quantum mechanics is proven. Essentially with mathematics that predict observed outcomes rather than direct observation of the process :)
 
Quote from Ricter:

The way I understand it is, the mathematics of this view of the universe resembles the mathematics of holograms. If you don't understand the mathematics, you cannot understand how the universe is a hologram but not actually a hologram. ; )
More...
I think that's a good way to put it. Still, for all the math, holographic cosmology is not part of mainstrean physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top