Entanglement as the Glue of Spacetime

[@wafikiri_]

I think the current state of physics is very entangled: string theories and dark matter and dark energy and relativity and standard model and quantum fields.... It reminds me of those times when orbits were described as epicycloids. We really need a better theory, one that really explains things, both at Plank and at intergalactic scales, without so many adjusting artifacts.

[@NothingMaster]

Experimental falsifiability is the name of the game. Any internally consistent theory on paper-be it String Theory, Quantum Loop Theory, Modular Spacetime, or what have you-is at once equally meaningful AND equally meaningless, as long as we don’t have a reproducibly irrefutable experimental evidence for it. If it is not falsifiable it is simply not science; but a mere philosophical exercise in mathematical reverie.

[@wulphstein]

If we assume that gravity is caused by quantum entanglement, then we might try entangling two photons with a gravitational entanglement. Then, you have p1 and p2 photons. Now, you blueshift the p1 photons, redshift the p2 photons, and viola, the entanglement is now a curved spacetime. You can use it like a curvature beam, a tractor beam.

[@X-boomer]

Er, no. It wouldn’t be useful as a tractor beam when both ends are racing away from you at the speed of light. By the way a viola is a stringed instrument resembling a large violin. I think you meant “voila”. Probably autocorrect’s fault.

[@X-boomer]

Although this guy describes himself as only a science journalist it seems clear his grasp of the subject is better than that of many professional physicists. This talk was more informative on these matters than most I’ve heard.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Nothing is like an excellent argument for the thought police.

[@darkmath100]

4:45 We can't send signals via entanglement assumes there is no way to prevent the collapse of the wave function. But that may not be true. It could just be we haven't refined our method of communication to the point the wave function would *not* collapse.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Each one had something it probably proved. No one knows. Nothing beats puzzles and their pieces until everyone has the same picture of the picture.

[@slingoking]

Only in the world of quantum theory is a game of paintball a "crazy thing".

[@emeraldgate1994]

Why not? Works for sun spots.

[@durgadasdatta7014]

Graviton is massive --may be around 750 proton mass. Standard model prescription is wrong. Graviton though massive can flow at speed higher than light speed. Gravity connects the universe for entanglement. So non local is bad idea .

[@ytgadfly]

except we have detected gravity waves and they traveled at the speed of light

[@lucaspierce3328]

To be attracted you must first have a fundamental 'connection', a co-entangled relationship. The pan-cosmo-quantum supra-conscious holographic informational memory force field of co-entanglement. So connection gives rise to attraction, plus entanglement is one of the most common experimental results in quantum physics and all other quantum phenomena can be explained by it.

[@zackbarkley7593]

@@ytgadfly this is true it might be energy dependent. High energy tachyons travel woukd travel close to light speed. Only low energy and more undetectable go faster.

[@Richardatf]

I can use big wurds two.

[@tracik1277]

Richardatf u can’t spell them tho lol

[@sweetness583]

Ok, how can space arise from entanglement when entanglement means separated objects are connected somehow? Separation is an idea that requires space to exist. You can't have separation without space. So doesn't there have to be space in the first place in order for entanglement to exist?

[@Synodalian]

Entanglement brings in the notion that causal relations precede _spatial_ and _temporal_ relations. What this implies, in other words, is that spacetime itself is an emergent phenomena that originates from a more fundamental layer of reality. Finally, when you analyze the mathematics of quantum mechanics itself, it is found that space itself isn't even a factor involved in any of these systems. Instead of objects being composed of spacetime, spacetime is composed of objects. These objects are what's now known to be some form of quantum information, thus rendering the universe as inherently immaterial, in that information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space, and time. What entanglement shows isn't that there is a connection between separate objects, but that there _is_ no separation to begin with (nonlocality), as proven through the violation of John Bell's inequality.

[@sweetness583]

XΣN Thanks for the reply. I'm still a little confused though. www.quantamagazine.org/20150428-how-quantum-pairs-stitch-space-time/ The article in that link has a gif and in the description it says as more particles become entangled, the 3-dimensional structure of spacetime emerges. But again, how are these particles different from one another if there is no space?

[@Synodalian]

sweetness583​​​ It all ultimately comes down to quantum information, or the interaction (entropy) of it. Instead of particles being individual objects, they are simply bits as part of a whole field/network of information. Sean Carroll explains it in terms of a mesh net of nodes: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/05/05/does-spacetime-emerge-from-quantum-information/

[@sweetness583]

I've been reading some articles and still trying to wrap my mind around this. So quantum information is the most fundamental? And spacetime emerges from that?

[@Synodalian]

sweetness583​​ Exactly. In fact, to make this model easier to comprehend, you can essentially describe the universe as emergent from information alone, which would render it as a sort of simulation (the universe derives from information in the same way that a virtual world derives from software code). For more on this idea, I'd recommend you read on the work of John Wheeler, Seth Lloyd, Ed Fredkin, Fotini Markopolou-Kalamara, Carlo Rovelli, or if the mathematics is intimidating, you can understand the root idea of this information-theoretic approach to reality through Karl Coryat. In fact, there's a book he's written that's online for free that thoroughly explains this model (at least without the rigorous mathematics that goes along with it): simplestcasescenario.com

[@materiasacra]

Long-winded, has trouble getting to the point. Too much introductory material that is generally known, not enough detail on the new stuff.

[@jamescollier3]

you know I've started to get to that point, when I listen to a subject a lot on KZbin. For example, JWST just launched and it's hard to find a more advanced talk

[@feliciozo]

@@jamescollier3 yeah it's all rehashing same thing over and over.