Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11 Dec 2016 12:57
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 03:04

Veritasium has an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY

However, it gives the impression that it's the distance between the wires or battery/lamp that matters.  However, it must be the distance between the switch and the lamp that matters, right?  Otherwise faster-than-light information flow would be possible.  And the explanation should focus on this.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 Sep 2016 02:33
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 04:37

However, it must be the distance between the switch and the lamp that matters, right?
Yes, that's correct. The switch is what closes the circuit, and because of how this circuit is laid out, it's the direct line of sight between the switch and the bulb that determines when current will first begin to flow through the bulb.

There are a few nice tricks to be able to see why it is 1 m/c (about 3.3 nanoseconds) for this to happen. My favorite is to realize that at short times after closing the switch, the situation is equivalent to two parallel antennae, one transmitting to the other. Or, closing the switch generates a very weak EMP, and we have a lightbulb on a conductor nearby. Which is basically one of the key points of the video -- electromagnetic energy is not constrained to only flow along a wire, and the effects can propagate through space at the speed of light. 

Here are yet more ways of thinking about the problem. I really like the presentation style in this video. :)
https://youtu.be/--v5BXmFYv4
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11 Dec 2016 12:57
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 13:45

Here are yet more ways of thinking about the problem
Yes, the antenna way of thinking about it is useful.  But the idea that it is the distance between the wires that matters is still maintained.  Somebody is bound to point out that if you move the switch halfway to the Moon, the distance between the wires is still one meter, so then you can easily send binary information to the lamp in 1m/c s.  An explanation should cover why things don't work that way.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 Sep 2016 02:33
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 14:37

Somebody is bound to point out that if you move the switch halfway to the Moon, the distance between the wires is still one meter, so then you can easily send binary information to the lamp in 1m/c s.  An explanation should cover why things don't work that way.
Completely agree. I'm happy to see the video spark so much discussion, debate, and explanatory videos, because it's a fascinating topic that easily breaks from common intuitions. But I think it's also fair to say Veritasium's approach was confusing, and I'm hopeful he revisits it, taking into account the feedback he has received.
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 19:35

Veritasium has an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY

However, it gives the impression that it's the distance between the wires or battery/lamp that matters.  However, it must be the distance between the switch and the lamp that matters, right?  Otherwise faster-than-light information flow would be possible.  And the explanation should focus on this.
I'm always skeptical of stuff like this, but since we have instantaneous quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, would it really matter if this was possible?  Reading all of the new research going on at the Institute for Advanced Study, I've pretty much convinced that space and time are both emergent and don't exist at the fundamental quantum level (they are the result of entanglement otherwise space-time would be ripped apart.)  It kind of makes the whole FTL thing irrelevant if there really is no such thing as space or time at a very basic level, doesn't it?  I love that area of study way more than classical experiments or even relativity, because it seems like "something" is missing, maybe because we are trying to understand something we are a part of?  That's why I like the quantum level so much better than "macro" because of how fundamental it is and how it creates the reality we see (or we think we see.....)
I was going to post this separately, but this dovetails nicely into the latest episode of Nova, which was about before the Big Bang, what I would call the quantumverse.
NOVA from this week-- I found it really interesting because they discussed the possibility/probability based on recent evidence that the structure of the universe was actually "decided" before the Big Bang.  Now that's some truly mindblowing stuff right there.

So basically there was this primordial soup of particles (on the quantum scale) and they interacted with each other in certain ways, creating entangled networks (curiously the same title of the intelligent fungi article) and before the Big Bang happened, this network was already hardwired into place because the universe emerged from this cosmic soup.  The implication is that other bubble universes could also emerge in the same way.  And this also explains why we see fully formed galaxies so soon (200 million years) after the Big Bang.  Whether it was a Big Bang or Big Bounce, the implications of a cosmic network hardwired from outside or before the universe are huge.
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 Sep 2016 02:33
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 20:54

It kind of makes the whole FTL thing irrelevant if there really is no such thing as space or time at a very basic level, doesn't it? 
No? Similarly, wetness does not exist at the atomic level, yet I don't think anyone would seriously claim that this makes the properties of liquids irrelevant.

The idea that space and time don't exist or are not important in quantum mechanics is not correct, anyway. The Schrodinger equation has both space and time coded into it. Literally, it describes how wave functions (which are functions of position) evolve over time, and that evolution depends on the potential (which is also a function of both position and time).
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

27 Nov 2021 23:23

It kind of makes the whole FTL thing irrelevant if there really is no such thing as space or time at a very basic level, doesn't it? 
No? Similarly, wetness does not exist at the atomic level, yet I don't think anyone would seriously claim that this makes the properties of liquids irrelevant.

The idea that space and time don't exist or are not important in quantum mechanics is not correct, anyway. The Schrodinger equation has both space and time coded into it. Literally, it describes how wave functions (which are functions of position) evolve over time, and that evolution depends on the potential (which is also a function of both position and time).
I'm not saying that FTL signaling is possible at our scale I'm just saying we need to start thinking of space and time in new ways based on the research below.  It actually clears up a large number of paradoxes and dilemmas being faced by theoretical physics.  I posted a small percentage of the articles I've been reading, just to give an idea of where the latest research is headed, but it's stunning and I am so glad that we have a source like quanta magazine to make it accessible.

At the IAS they're working with the idea that ER=EPR indicates that space time are emergent from pairings of quantum particles, that space time can be divided into qubits of information and that without quantum entanglement it wouldn't exist.  I have a list of articles saved about it because I find it fascinating as it seems to be the way they are thinking we need to go for a full theory of quantum gravity.  Breakthrough research-- it goes way beyond Schrodinger's equation.  Arkani-Hamed seems to be a major superstar in this field, I've been reading all his research avidly.  This represents a new paradigm in physics, I think you'll find the following really interesting, I actually did a 62.5 hour Space Engine documentary based on the amazing research being done at IAS.  I think you'll want to read these articles, I literally immersed myself in this for months lol, I have plenty more and the original research is linked in the articles and I saved the sources also in case you would like to check it out (though the research is also linked in the articles themselves.)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/one-labs ... -20210907/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-spac ... -20190103/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917 ... m-physics/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicis ... s-20130917

https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-ar ... -20180604/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20140416/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/nima-ark ... -20150922/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-our- ... -20190221/

Also the end of the black hole information paradox, which is unexpected to say the least

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most ... -20201029/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/netta-en ... -20210823/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/hologram ... -20191119/
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 Sep 2016 02:33
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy Questions

28 Nov 2021 00:43

I'm not saying that FTL signaling is possible at our scale I'm just saying we need to start thinking of space and time in new ways based on the research below. 
Okay, but that is not related to our discussion about how to think about Veritasium's circuit problem. There is nothing in the research or articles you linked that indicates the concept of causality doesn't apply to this situation (or any other situation that falls under the realm of special relativity), and Midtskogen's point that the way the electrodynamics works must be consistent with the circuit not being able to function like an FTL transmitter is a good one.
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

28 Nov 2021 09:56

I'm not saying that FTL signaling is possible at our scale I'm just saying we need to start thinking of space and time in new ways based on the research below. 
Okay, but that is not related to our discussion about how to think about Veritasium's circuit problem. There is nothing in the research or articles you linked that indicates the concept of causality doesn't apply to this situation (or any other situation that falls under the realm of special relativity), and Midtskogen's point that the way the electrodynamics works must be consistent with the circuit not being able to function like an FTL transmitter is a good one.
Yes I completely agree with that and causality is another emergent result of the building blocks of quantum mechanics.  The fascinating thing that I found when I read the articles, Wat, something I know you'll appreciate, is a sudden light lit up explaining WHY the universe is like this.  I've always wondered about that.  It's been something that has preoccupied my thinking, and it seems like the answer is "our universe could not be any other way."  In fact, other universes with other physical laws, according to what I read, would also have to have causality emerge from quantum mechanics as well as a "speed limit" even if it wasn't exactly the same as ours.  That's a very profound thought.  It seems to be that the reason for this is a universe that didn't have these limits and laws emerge from quantum mechanics wouldn't be stable enough to expand in the first place (its "bubble" would burst quickly).  
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11 Dec 2016 12:57
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Science and Astronomy Questions

28 Nov 2021 16:21

Everything we experience with our senses may be emergent properties and technically not reality.  The quantum world clearly suggests that.  But we do not know whether the quantum world is yet another emergent property of something even more fundamental.  We don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes, or if it even has a bottom, and because of that we can't really say whether something is more real than something else as long as it's consistent at some scale or level of detail.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

28 Nov 2021 20:29

Everything we experience with our senses may be emergent properties and technically not reality.  The quantum world clearly suggests that.  But we do not know whether the quantum world is yet another emergent property of something even more fundamental.  We don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes, or if it even has a bottom, and because of that we can't really say whether something is more real than something else as long as it's consistent at some scale or level of detail.
I love this....it's very philosophical and metaphysical....how far down the rabbit hole can we go without ending up back where we started (cyclical in both space and time)? I remember there was discussion of something called preons awhile back being more fundamental than quarks but no evidence has as yet been discovered of them.  And from theoretical physics and cosmology we have the conjecture about universes inside black holes and those universes have their own black holes which host their own universes, if thats cyclic too go far enough down and you end up right back where you started.
Just as intriguing is how the quantum world directly influences biology through dna and how photosynthesis happens as well as some extra senses (like how birds navigate and how foxes hunt).
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11 Dec 2016 12:57
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Science and Astronomy Questions

29 Nov 2021 00:40

One fascinating thought is that even though we can say that something is an emergent property in physics, we can still formulate precise laws and formulas which exactly match the observations, and that can't be a coincidence.  What does that tell us about reality - or mathematics?

To illustrate what an emergent property is, I think a TV set is a nice example.  We see moving objects on the screen, but if we get close up, we realise that there are just a bunch of individual dots which light up and fade in a coordinated way, and they change only so many times per second and have a limited number of intensity levels so not only are the images an emergent property but also the motion.  And even closer inspection reveals that the dots are made up of even smaller red, green and blue dots, and we can conclude that even the colours that we see are emergent properties.  But all that doesn't mean that it's wrong to speak of images, motion and colours when we take a couple of steps back again.  We are simply describing order at different levels.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

29 Nov 2021 16:31

One fascinating thought is that even though we can say that something is an emergent property in physics, we can still formulate precise laws and formulas which exactly match the observations, and that can't be a coincidence.  What does that tell us about reality - or mathematics?

To illustrate what an emergent property is, I think a TV set is a nice example.  We see moving objects on the screen, but if we get close up, we realise that there are just a bunch of individual dots which light up and fade in a coordinated way, and they change only so many times per second and have a limited number of intensity levels so not only are the images an emergent property but also the motion.  And even closer inspection reveals that the dots are made up of even smaller red, green and blue dots, and we can conclude that even the colours that we see are emergent properties.  But all that doesn't mean that it's wrong to speak of images, motion and colours when we take a couple of steps back again.  We are simply describing order at different levels.
Maybe that we live in a mathematical universe?  Mathematics may be more than just formulations to match observations, perhaps the universe is in fact mathematical.  Maybe all universes are.  It makes sense because at the quantum level, everything seems to work according to mathematical relations as opposed to anything physical (maybe like a cosmic quantum computer, note the article about space-time's efficient quantum error correcting code.)  It's very abstract but also wonderful in a wholistic sense.
Somewhere in those articles there should be something about the Holographic Principle and the AdS/CFT correspondence, which Juan Maldacena discovered or formulated.  That was done based on a toy universe (antiDeSitter space hence the AdS part of the correspondence, obtained from string theory), a model created in which an interior space (bulk) can be created with an emergent third dimension of space from an exterior boundary where there only two dimensions of space.  Gravity also emerged from this model.  But in the more recent article which I also posted physicists had found a way to make the correspondence work with our kind of universe (DeSitter space), with a similar bulk/boundary (like being inside a black hole....noteworthy.....which is why I also included links about the possible solution to the black hole information paradox, which seems to be interrelated to this.)  Anyway in this new DeSitter model, time becomes the emergent dimension from the boundary that only exists in the bulk and there is a strong connection between gravity and time because both are emergent and neither exists on the boundary but are only found in the bulk.  The duality between gravity and time is particularly interesting because out of the 4 dimensions, time is different from all the rest and out of the 4 forces, gravity is different out of all the rest.  So there seems to be a deeper connection there between the two of them.  So the boundary is the timeless "outer" edge of the universe (whatever you consider "outer" to mean in this case) that contains all the information of the universe, all past, present and future, combined.  I pictured it in my head as I read the description, it's like the boundary is a film reel that projects all of reality into the bulk.  Every frame of the movie exists simultaneously at the boundary but we in the bulk, who are part of the movie see it as a continuously moving film.
Last edited by A-L-E-X on 30 Nov 2021 04:09, edited 1 time in total.
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 3498
Joined: 06 Mar 2017 20:19

Science and Astronomy Questions

29 Nov 2021 16:44

One fascinating thought is that even though we can say that something is an emergent property in physics, we can still formulate precise laws and formulas which exactly match the observations, and that can't be a coincidence.  What does that tell us about reality - or mathematics?

To illustrate what an emergent property is, I think a TV set is a nice example.  We see moving objects on the screen, but if we get close up, we realise that there are just a bunch of individual dots which light up and fade in a coordinated way, and they change only so many times per second and have a limited number of intensity levels so not only are the images an emergent property but also the motion.  And even closer inspection reveals that the dots are made up of even smaller red, green and blue dots, and we can conclude that even the colours that we see are emergent properties.  But all that doesn't mean that it's wrong to speak of images, motion and colours when we take a couple of steps back again.  We are simply describing order at different levels.
Exactly- wow I just read the second part of your post and it's so interesting what you said about the TV matches the way I pictured the boundary as a film reel and us as observers who are actually part of the movie trying to understand if the movie is reality.  In your analogy we would be the characters who are on the TV screen trying to understand where our reality originates and even if there are other realities, similar but different.  The primary color analogy is also on point because we have three spatial dimensions so you can correlate that to RGB additive primary colors and time would be the background (black).  Black would signify the direction of the arrow of time.  Likewise you could have a complementary universe that was CMY subtractive primary color dimensions where time was white (reverse arrow of time compared to ours but still forward relative to itself, like conveyor belts going in opposite directions but all the denizens of each conveyor belt facing forward relative to the direction of movement of each.)
 
User avatar
Cantra
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 403
Joined: 02 Nov 2016 18:23
Location: Sedna

Science and Astronomy Questions

04 Jan 2022 14:31

Has there been any more evidence of Planet 9? How many other planets could be in our system without us really knowing about it?
Just a random user on the internet, nothing to see here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests