Imaging Quantum entanglement achieved

[shunyadragon]

So what you are saying is that Seer is correct and you can't explain what it means. [

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

No you did not "confirm this" - you denied this:

Shunya: The work of Ooguri does not address the role of spacetime.

You are correct I miss cited, thank you for the clarification on the error in my last post.

[Sparko]

So Seer asks you to explain it and you just repeat it verbatim?

[B]

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

As I stated in the previous post:

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

Again, again, and again still waiting . . . for a refutation of anything I posted based on references.

So what you are saying is that Seer is correct and you can't explain what it means.

True I confirmed this, and it was not the intent of the research.

No you did not "confirm this" - you denied this:

Shunya: The work of Ooguri does not address the role of spacetime.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Sparko;652139]So Seer asks you to explain it and you just repeat it verbatim?

[B]

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

As I stated in the previous post:

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

Again, again, and again still waiting . . . for a refutation of anything I posted based on references.

um...

"but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators."

True I confirmed this, and it was not the intent of the research.

[Sparko]

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

Again, again, and again still waiting . . .

"Now, Ooguri and his collaborators have found that quantum entanglement is the key to solving this question. Using a quantum theory (that does not include gravity), they showed how to compute energy density, which is a source of gravitational interactions in three dimensions, using quantum entanglement data on the surface. This is analogous to diagnosing conditions inside of your body by looking at X-ray images on two-dimensional sheets. This allowed them to interpret universal properties of quantum entanglement as conditions on the energy density that should be satisfied by any consistent quantum theory of gravity, without actually explicitly including gravity in the theory. The importance of quantum entanglement has been suggested before, but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators."

The highlighted in plan English is the significance of the ability of imaging to better to understand and use Quantum entanglement to explain 'any consistent quantum theory of gravity,' without including the gravity in the theory. In other words 'quantum entanglement' can potentially arrive at the theory of gravity on its own.

So Seer asks you to explain it and you just repeat it verbatim?

The work of Ooguri does not address the role of spacetime.

um...

"but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators."

[shunyadragon]

Then Shuny tell us exactly what this means or admit you have no idea...

The citation is actually self explanatory, and reflects my previous citations, and is not in conflict with anything I previously stated. What Sparko and you have not done is 'quote' my previous posts and demonstrate anything that is in error by citing these articles or any other concerning Quantum entanglement.

Again, again, and again still waiting . . .

"Now, Ooguri and his collaborators have found that quantum entanglement is the key to solving this question. Using a quantum theory (that does not include gravity), they showed how to compute energy density, which is a source of gravitational interactions in three dimensions, using quantum entanglement data on the surface. This is analogous to diagnosing conditions inside of your body by looking at X-ray images on two-dimensional sheets. This allowed them to interpret universal properties of quantum entanglement as conditions on the energy density that should be satisfied by any consistent quantum theory of gravity, without actually explicitly including gravity in the theory. The importance of quantum entanglement has been suggested before, but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators."

The highlighted in plan English is the significance of the ability of imaging to better to understand and use Quantum entanglement to explain 'any consistent quantum theory of gravity,' without including the gravity in the theory. In other words 'quantum entanglement' can potentially arrive at the theory of gravity on its own.

The work of Ooguri does not address the role of spacetime.

The methods 'showed how to compute energy densities of the particles' as a source if gravitational dimensions by imaging the two-dimensional surface.

[seer]

Nice informative citation, but still nothing cited that refutes nor contradicts anything I posted.

Then Shuny tell us exactly what this means or admit you have no idea...

Now, Ooguri and his collaborators have found that quantum entanglement is the key to solving this question. Using a quantum theory (that does not include gravity), they showed how to compute energy density, which is a source of gravitational interactions in three dimensions, using quantum entanglement data on the surface. This is analogous to diagnosing conditions inside of your body by looking at X-ray images on two-dimensional sheets. This allowed them to interpret universal properties of quantum entanglement as conditions on the energy density that should be satisfied by any consistent quantum theory of gravity, without actually explicitly including gravity in the theory. The importance of quantum entanglement has been suggested before, but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators.

[shunyadragon]

Well Shuny, tell us exactly what this means from your link, or admit that you are once again posting stuff that you don't understand, while pretending that you do.

Nice informative citation, but still nothing cited that refutes nor contradicts anything I posted.

[shunyadragon]

I guess you missed the little winking emoji at the end of that sentence?

I seem to know more about it than you do, as ignorant as I am.

. . . no references to refute what I posted, and you admitted not knowing anything about the subject.

[seer]

I simply cited the two articles as to what they said the interpretation was. Yes I added my view, but it is a fact you nor anyone else has cited anything that is contradictory as to what I posted.

Still waiting . . .

Well Shuny, tell us exactly what this means from your link, or admit that you are once again posting stuff that you don't understand, while pretending that you do.

Now, Ooguri and his collaborators have found that quantum entanglement is the key to solving this question. Using a quantum theory (that does not include gravity), they showed how to compute energy density, which is a source of gravitational interactions in three dimensions, using quantum entanglement data on the surface. This is analogous to diagnosing conditions inside of your body by looking at X-ray images on two-dimensional sheets. This allowed them to interpret universal properties of quantum entanglement as conditions on the energy density that should be satisfied by any consistent quantum theory of gravity, without actually explicitly including gravity in the theory. The importance of quantum entanglement has been suggested before, but its precise role in emergence of spacetime was not clear until the new paper by Ooguri and collaborators.

[Sparko]

I did, nothing there, no references to refute what I posted, and you admitted not knowing anything about the subject.

I guess you missed the little winking emoji at the end of that sentence?

I seem to know more about it than you do, as ignorant as I am.

[shunyadragon]

Go back and reread my posts.

I did, nothing there, no references to refute what I posted, and you admitted not knowing anything about the subject.

[Sparko]

I simply cited the two articles as to what they said the interpretation was. Yes I added my view, but it is a fact you nor anyone else has cited anything that is contradictory as to what I posted.

Still waiting . . .

Go back and reread my posts.

[shunyadragon]

At least I know what I don't know. Shuny thinks he knows what he doesn't.

I simply cited the two articles as to what they said the interpretation was. Yes I added my view, but it is a fact you nor anyone else has cited anything that is contradictory as to what I posted.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

How is a one sentence reply "verbose?"

I tried to have a discussion with you but you don't seem to understand the article you yourself posted in post #2. And you seem to just kneejerk disagree with anything I say.

Mo

[Sparko]

Well, to be fair, neither do you, Sparko, which you acknowledged in your 3rd post in the thread.

At least I know what I don't know. Shuny thinks he knows what he doesn't.