Imaging Quantum entanglement achieved

[JimL]

I was mocking you. I stand by what I said, that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

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

[Sparko]

Not a coherent rational response as usual, just verbose rhetoric.

All you are capable of is mocking those who disagree with you.

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.

[shunyadragon]

I was mocking you. I stand by what I said, that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Not a coherent rational response as usual, just verbose rhetoric.

All you are capable of is mocking those who disagree with you.

[seer]

I stand by what I said, that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

No, really?

[Sparko]

You previously asserted that . . . "um, yes it is, that is the whole central point of their theory," which is not the case.

I was mocking you. I stand by what I said, that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[shunyadragon]

You go girl.

You previously asserted that . . . "um, yes it is, that is the whole central point of their theory," which is not the case.

[Sparko]

I provided the references and comments. Read them yourselves. I will possibly be posting more references.

The only results of this research is the imaging documents the cause and effect relationship of the particles. It takes a bit of the mystery out of the entanglement problem.

Contemporary research like referred to in this thread has revealed that quantum superposition can be explained based on the imaging of the events without the contradictions and problems proposed in the Copenhagen Interpretation.


I may add to this with further references discussion on Quantum entanglement.

You go girl.

[shunyadragon]

You might try actually reading the theory instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to anything I say.

I provided the references and comments. Read them yourselves. I will possibly be posting more references.

The only results of this research is the imaging documents the cause and effect relationship of the particles. It takes a bit of the mystery out of the entanglement problem.

Contemporary research like referred to in this thread has revealed that quantum superposition can be explained based on the imaging of the events without the contradictions and problems proposed in the Copenhagen Interpretation.


I may add to this with further references discussion on Quantum entanglement.

[Sparko]

No, using the term 'similar' is the same as an 'analogy' when comparing to a hologram, just certain aspects may be analogous to a hologram. The universe may be described as a 3 dimensional with our 3D space encoded on it, and actually that is what it is. Science is descriptive.

You might try actually reading the theory instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to anything I say.

I am not sure where this is going, because science does propose that our physical existence is a hologram, except maybe Tom Campbell.

[shunyadragon]

derp. Nobody is saying it is an actual hologram like we create on film - my comment about God's projector was a joke. But it is not exactly an analogy either. The theory actually suggests that the universe works similar to a hologram, that the universe is actually 2 dimensional with our 3D space encoded on it.

No, using the term 'similar' is the same as an 'analogy' when comparing to a hologram, just certain aspects may be analogous to a hologram. The universe may be described as a 3 dimensional with our 3D space encoded on it, and actually that is what it is. Science is descriptive.

I am not sure where this is going, because science does propose that our physical existence is a hologram, except maybe Tom Campbell.

[Sparko]

The holographic principle does not describe the universe as a hologram. It is a descriptive term used as an analogous parallel.

Source: Holographic principle - Wikipedia
[url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle][/url]

The holographic principle is a tenet of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—such as a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.google.com/search?ei=C1wvXdDQO4rPtQadhZKoDw&q=hologram+definition&oq=hologram&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39j0i20i263j0l8.74598.78902..80788...0.0..0.122.1365.12j3....3..0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.CJDnyxfSdFk

Hologram - a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source.

© Copyright Original Source

derp. Nobody is saying it is an actual hologram like we create on film - my comment about God's projector was a joke. But it is not exactly an analogy either. The theory actually suggests that the universe works similar to a hologram, that the universe is actually 2 dimensional with our 3D space encoded on it.

[shunyadragon]

um, yes it is, that is the whole central point of their theory. Did you even read their article? Without a holographic universe, their theory is non-existent.

The holographic principle is widely regarded as an essential feature of a successful Theory of Everything. The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding the volume. In particular, the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface. However, understanding the precise mechanics for the emergence of the volume from the surface has been elusive.

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.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-spacet...anglement.html

The holographic principle does not describe the universe as a hologram. It is a descriptive term used as an analogous parallel.

Source: Holographic principle - Wikipedia
[url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle][/url]

The holographic principle is a tenet of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—such as a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.google.com/search?ei=C1wvXdDQO4rPtQadhZKoDw&q=hologram+definition&oq=hologram&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39j0i20i263j0l8.74598.78902..80788...0.0..0.122.1365.12j3....3..0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.CJDnyxfSdFk

Hologram - a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Yes, the theory is moldy old, well, ah . . . at least as old as computers and a common theme of scifi. Tom Campbell advocates such a theory, but no it is not remotely advocated by the authors of this research as real depiction of the nature of our physical existence.

um, yes it is, that is the whole central point of their theory. Did you even read their article? Without a holographic universe, their theory is non-existent.

The holographic principle is widely regarded as an essential feature of a successful Theory of Everything. The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding the volume. In particular, the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface. However, understanding the precise mechanics for the emergence of the volume from the surface has been elusive.

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.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-spacet...anglement.html

[shunyadragon]

Look up "universe is a hologram" - This is a theory that started long before. The people in your article just used that theory to explain quantum entanglement.

Here are a couple of articles I found:

https://www.space.com/39510-are-we-l...-hologram.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-o...gram-20190221/

Yes, the theory is moldy old, well, ah . . . at least as old as computers and a common theme of scifi. Tom Campbell advocates such a theory, but no it is not remotely advocated by the authors of this research as real depiction of the nature of our physical existence.

[Sparko]

'Seems to be . . . like a hologram' would only be a stretch of an analogy for illustration, and not something that actually is a hologram.

I will not venture into the hypothetical, and I do not believe the possibility of our physical existence is a hologram is proposed as a result of this research in the literature cited.

This research does represent an advancement in understanding the nature of Quantum entanglement.

Look up "universe is a hologram" - This is a theory that started long before. The people in your article just used that theory to explain quantum entanglement.

Here are a couple of articles I found:

https://www.space.com/39510-are-we-l...-hologram.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-o...gram-20190221/