QuantumT

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Er... that invokes a god. 

Are you saying that free will requires a god? That determinism is the only other option?

Is it just me, or is the word parallel all wrong in this context?

As far as I know it derives from the 'many worlds hypothesis', so what they must have meant is a multiverse, like in M-theory. Right?

But even if they did mean a multiverse, how could a neighbor universe make voids in ours?  Wouldn't its gravitational pull have the opposite effect?

I love this subject. Time in accordance to relativity.

If all aliens (incl. humans) in the universe gathered one place to establish universal time, it would probably look like the House of Commons during Brexit 😄

2 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

Sadly, you don't even understand the basics of the experiment.

I understand it perfectly well, I just interpret it differently than you do.

31 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

I'm sure Mandela died in prison

But unlike the Wigner's experiment, you can google what happened to Mandela, and determine that one of them was mistaken. He did not die in prison, no matter how clearly the memory is.

To me, the Wigner's experiment only shows, that a particle is capable of returning to the wave state, when observer A stops observing. So when observer B starts observing, the wave collapses again. It's a new event. Not the same event with two outcomes.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Now that's just silly.

In string theory the gravity is there. It's just out of reach. Is it really so silly to imagine a way to get it out?
We know that a vacuum won't do it, so maybe the opposite could?
Yes, I know it's speculation, thus the category of this thread.

Positrons are very real, but difficult to contain, because they will annihilate when they come in contact with electrons, due to them being antimatter.

That is one reason that they're useless as a source of electricity. Another reason is that we don't have enough antimatter to make an electrical system of it.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It also requires a good understanding of the math.

I have that. I just need to learn the equations, which is easier said than done. Where do I start? Who's gonna tell me what all the symbols mean?
I have the skills and the will, but no teacher.

I cut the crusts off my sandwiches, but besides that I have almost zero waste.
My freezer is so stuffed, that the plastic drawers in it have cracked 😁

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And there is the fact that we see galaxy collisions where the "extra mass" (dark matter) has separated from the visible mass of the galaxy.

Or galaxies with no dark matter (so no "wormholes).

Or the fact that the amount of dark matter we observe is also required by simulations of the early galaxy to produce the large scale structures we see.

Or the baryon acoustic oscillations that produce peaks and troughs in the CMB power spectrum, which require dark matter to explain them.

And why would the distribution of these wormholes follow that produced by simulations of dark matter?

Maybe you can come up with ad-hoc "lemon juicer" ideas to explain each of these (and the other evidence for dark matter actually being matter).

But they can all be explained by one thing: a novel form of matter that we cannot currently directly detect. We have been here before, so it is not a particularly shocking concept. And, not surprisingly, each time there is a new "undetectable" particle it is harder to find than the previous one (because if it weren't harder to find, we would already have found it!)

You are probably right, that DM is a much better answer.
I'm just trying to chip in. Contributing to science is my highest aspiration.

On 3/28/2020 at 4:25 AM, MigL said:

Even if that could account for the increased 'constraint' between galactic components like stars and gas/dust nebulae, such that rotation speeds are affected ( it can't ), how would you explain gravitational lensing, where the mass-energy of a galaxy bends light incoming from more distant objects ?
If the mass-energy isn't actually there, the amount of bending would be reduced, and it would not be in agreement with the Dark Matter amounts responsible for the altered rotation speeds.

Very good point. I did not take gravitational lensing into account. My bad. But I might have a fix for that. I call it 'the lemon effect'.
The lemon effect takes the hiding gravity from the extra dimensions of string theory. Under the enormous pressure inside stars, it is squeezed out from the particles in the nucleus. Like squeezing a lemon to make lemonade.

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

According to your idea, at which point in time are the wormholes created? Dust and gas clouds are able to form structures and produce stars. Were the wormholes already existing and did the wormholes hold the gas together?

The wormhole would arise when the star is formed. I don't know at what point the gravity would be strong enough to make it happen, but there would be a point. The reverse of that would answer this question:

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

What happens to the wormholes when a star reaches it's end of life? Does a galaxy with, let's say, many supernovas start to fall apart due to a lack of wormholes holding the galaxy together?

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

How does the universe know which stars that are adjacent and "need" wormholes to hold the galaxy together?

By what mechanism are wormholes "created" and "destroyed" when stars move and become, or are no longer, adjacent?

It would have to follow mathematical laws, like everything else in the universe, I suppose.

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

How does the answers to the above questions match what is observed when we study the universe?

That's what I'm here to figure out.

Is this at all plausible?

If not, thank you for helping me figuring that out!

First of all I'd like to thank this forum, for allowing me to present my ideas. And let me say, I'm not an opponent of dark matter, just a little skeptical about it.

I have for long been looking for a replacement for it. Something that wasn't undetectable, or atleast didn't require the total mass of the universe to be multiplied six times.

Since I don't know the math of what I'm about to suggest, please be gentle with me, when you reject and disprove my suggestion.

My suggestion is that wormholes are much more common than we thought. They are between all adjacent stars, and form an invisible gravity web, that makes stars able to form galaxies.

Yes, it's quite simple, and just needs a slightly different approach to gravity. Of course these wormholes can't be used for travel. They're just strong enough for stars not to drift apart.

Am I completely mistaken?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nothing at all. Many people are comforted in their beliefs.

Everybody is comforted in their beliefs. That's just how humans work.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your use of the Heinlein quote is an example of a logical fallacy. Just because science has has been wrong in the past does not mean that everything is wrong. Just because some things that were thought to be impossible later turned out to be possible does not mean that anything is possible.

Your naive belief that it may be possible in future to imagine a test for Last Thursdayism is based on this same fallacy.

I did withdraw anything by putting it in quotation. And mentioned a couple of things I consider impossible. I'm not completely gullible.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. This is an almost childlike belief.

What's the harm in that?

Quote

One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.

- ROBERT A. HEINLEIN

Just now, Ghideon said:

If someone has the ability to simulate what I currently believe to be "the reality" then I guess they could possess the skills needed to simulate a divine creator if they wanted to. And simulate time travel as well.

Wouldn't that be a fake divinity? I would definitively deem it fake. But yes, the biblical "god" could exist, as a puppet creator. Wouldn't that be hilarious? 🤣

Backwards time travel is a whole different problem. We would need to somehow gain control of the simulation computer itself, and reverse time. Would that even be possible? Would they allow it? I think the answer is a double no.

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Impossible in the "real" universe or in simulated simulated one?

Both

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

So, like, maybe last Thursday? 😝

HAHA! 🤣

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nope. There is no such thing.

Even you can't imagine one, and you believe anything is possible.  

"Anything" is only possible with deep future technology. There are things I consider impossible, like backwards time travel, and the existence of a divine creator.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is an unscientific (but philosophically useful) idea.

I agree that it's unfalsifiable, but my hope is that that will change in the future, however unlikely that is.

Imagine a test that could only fail if we are simulated? Sounds improbable, but what if.... 😉

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why would they want to wait almost 14 billion years to find out what they are really looking for, which is the state of the universe in the year 2021?

Their processing power decides their speed limit, so 13 billion years could be done in a few hours or days.

But you are absolutely right, I don't know anything. I just enjoy speculating about it. Some people enjoy chess or sudoku, I prefer to imagine how our universe/world could be simulated.

On 3/8/2020 at 2:20 AM, zapatos said:

If this is indeed a simulation why is it ridiculous to think it may have begun last Thursday? When do you propose the simulation actually began?

Because it's too much work. If the simulation began last thursday, they would have had to fabricate 7.5 billion narratives and countless interactions. The easy way to do it, is just to let it all unfold on its own, from the big bang and till now. They might have adjusted a monkey to fit their idea of how we should look, but other than that, I think they avoided mingling too much.

I actually dread having this discussion, because, although I might be a proponent, I'm not a believer, and some people here dislike it so much, that they push the red button on my posts. And I don't think it's worth the little good reputation that I have left. So I'd prefer if we discontinued this.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not about uncertainty, it is about testability.

How would you test if the universe is actually 13.8 billion years old or it was created last Thursday but made to look as if it were 13.8 billion years old?

It is impossible.

As I said, they will one day concoct a test we can't even imagine today. That's my faith in science.
I even have one in mind, but it will require a powerful quantum computer.
Btw, I reject and despise last-thursdayism. I find it to be extremely naive and a direct insult to an otherwise valid hypothesis.

Nothing is impossible, given enough time and technological advancement.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

But if that were to rule out a simulation on a grid, it would not rule out a simulation. And if it were to show a lattice structure to the universe, it would not rule out that being completely natural. Either result could be either a simulation or natural.

But even if those were to find the results they claim would support a particular type of hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to not just assume that "that is the way the universe works". Whatever results they get could be either a simulation or natural.

Evidence that space is quantized on a lattice, or that things only come into existence when observed (or any other claimed evidence for simulation) may be consistent with the simulation hypothesis. But it can't rule out the alternative that we just live in a world that behaves like our idea of a simulation. Nothing can. 

There is nothing you can come up with that could only happen if the universe were a simulation. And nothing you can come up with that would be impossible if the universe were a simulation.

Nope. It is the philosophical equivalent of solipsism or Last Thursdayism. Completely unfalsifiable by its very definition.

All scientific theories have a degree of uncertainty, some more than others. So in that sense it's not standing out. Like Feynman said

Quote

Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

I think your faith in science is poor (or you are simply biased against it). I am sure they will concoct a test one day, that will satisfy even you, but I'm not sure it will be in our lifetime.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not (by definition) possible to come up with a test to either confirm or refute the simulation hypothesis.

Not entirely true. Nothing has been found yet, but they are looking for evidence in deep space: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf

and other tests are on the way:
https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Edge20171230
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IJQF-3888.pdf

Maybe you've been too fast deeming it untestable and unworthy?

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is just a matter of fact. For example, what could disprove the hypothesis?

The same could be said about string "theory", but as long as people with PhD's are researching it, it's science.
But, as you pointed out earlier, we should respect the premise of the thread and stop. Or at least move this to a new thread.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If this is the "simulation hypothesis" then it is not science

With all respect, that's not for you to decide.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

it is an off-topic hijack

I did try to avoid getting deeper into it

22 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But guys, don't mind me. I know you don't agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince you. The subject of this thread was begging me to throw it in. I'll hush now

So, end of discussion from here.