|
Post by Virginia on Aug 28, 2012 15:11:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I don't believe this hologram thing. They said UFO's could be holograms and I don't believe that either. Who operates the hologram?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2012 21:23:16 GMT -5
Think of it this way - there is a duality of reality - both thing and non-thing at the same time. A photon is the best example - while traveling through space, it is only measurable as a wave - light waves - however, when it interacts with another particle it is only measurable as a particle. Look at your diamond ring. Some of the hardest stuff we know - yet, it is nothing more than a collection of carbon atoms all closely attracted to one another. Now look at each individual carbon atom. Just a collection of protons,neutrons, and electrons. Each individual sub atomic particle looks like a thing - interacts with other particles like a thing - but upon close measurement it is best described as an electromagnetic wave. Electrons are never considered a thing anymore - it has become a cloud of energy. So, at the sub-atomic scale your diamond ring is nothing more than many many smaller electromagnetic clouds of energy. So all reality is built by small packets of energy waves. Here is my example. * this is a particle alone. How do I even know it is there? * * you need another particle to move close to the single particle. Both particles are clouds of energy. However, with a second particle close enough, the 2 different energy clouds interact. Like 2 magnets coming into range of one another. Pull closer or repel. Now you can measure both particles - or you have the impression that you are measuring a particle, but what you are actually doing is measuring the interaction between the 2. So, all physical / visible reality is nothing more than our perception of many small energy clouds. The thing is built upon a non-thing! This is exactly why it may be easier to see ourselves as physical and spirit. The reciepe of reality is E=mc 2 AND - just as different colors are formed by different wave lengths - who is to say what lays outside of our limit of wave length knowledge. One last example - there is water in a glass - the surface is smooth and flat - 2 dimensional - like a sheet of paper. Bang a spoon against the glass - the vibrations are easily seen in the water's surface. waves raise above the surface and move across the surface. These wave have just become 3 dimensional - measurable as height, width, and length. Now when different waves crash into each other - an entire new science is needed to explain their interactions. But without the imput of energy (the banging spoon) there is nothing there except a 2 dimensional flat surface. Did I make a point - or just muddy the water Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Dec 18, 2012 18:10:37 GMT -5
'The idea we live in a simulation isn't science fiction' New Scientist, Magazine issue 2895, December 18th 2012, Justin Mullins www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628950.300-the-idea-we-live-in-a-simulation-isnt-science-fiction.html If the universe is just a Matrix-like simulation, how could we ever know? Physicist Silas Beane thinks he has the answer The idea that we live in a simulation is just science fiction, isn't it?There is a famous argument that we probably do live in a simulation. The idea is that in future, humans will be able to simulate entire universes quite easily. And given the vastness of time ahead, the number of these simulations is likely to be huge. So if you ask the question: 'do we live in the one true reality or in one of the many simulations?', the answer, statistically speaking, is that we're more likely to be living in a simulation. How did you end up working on this issue?My day job is to do high performance computing simulations of the forces of nature, particularly the strong nuclear force. My colleagues and I use a grid-like lattice to represent a small chunk of space and time. We put all the forces into that little cube and calculate what happens. In effect, we're simulating a very tiny corner of the universe. How accurate are your simulations?We're able to calculate some of the properties of real things like the simplest nuclei. But the process also generates artefacts that don't appear in the real world and that we have to remove. So we started to think about what sort of artefacts might appear if we lived in a simulation. What did you discover?In our universe the laws of physics are the same in every direction. But in a grid, this changes since you no longer have a spacetime continuum, and the laws of physics would depend on direction. Simulators would be able to hide this effect but they wouldn't be able to get rid of it completely. How might we gather evidence that we're in a simulation?Using very high energy particles. The highest energy particles that we know of are cosmic rays and there is a well-known natural cut off in their energy at about 1020 electron volts. We calculated that if the simulators used a grid size of about 10-27 metres, then the cut off energy would vary in different directions. Do cosmic rays vary in this way?We don't know. The highest energy cosmic rays are very rare. A square kilometre on Earth is hit by one only about once per century so we're not going to be able map out their distribution any time soon. And even if we do, it'll be hard to show that this is conclusive proof that we're in a simulation. But can we improve our own simulations?The size of the universe we simulate is a just fermi, that's a box with sides 10-15 metres long. But we can use Moore's Law to imagine what we might be able to simulate in future. If the current trends in computing continue, we should be simulating a universe the size of a human within a century and within five centuries, we could manage a box 1026 metres big. That's the size of the observable universe. How have people reacted to your work?I gave a lecture on this topic the other week and the turnout was amazing. Half of the people looked at me as if I was disturbed and the other half were very enthusiastic. ProfileSilas Beane is a physicist at the University of Bonn, Germany. His paper "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation" has been submitted to the journal Physical Review D
|
|