[yor_on (OP)]

It seems like quantum systems are susceptible to chaos, just as our macroscopic world. One interesting fact seems to be that when they do get into a chaos behavior they also becomes increasingly entangled, according to Prof. Poul Jessen and his group in the College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. Chaos and quantum mechanics.

And then, from the other end, we have string theory and the theoretical work done by Mark Van Raamsdonk "Quantum Gravity and Entanglement" in where he suggests "that more quantitative measures of entanglement in states of a quantum system give direct information about quantitative geometrical quantities in the corresponding spacetimes, such as areas and geodesic distances. The complete picture for how to deduce the spacetime associated with a particular state in the AdS/CFT correspondence is certainly still beyond our reach, but I believe these connections between entanglement and geometry may be an important part of the story. If correct, they suggest a deep connection between quantum gravity and quantum information theory (the natural setting for studies of entanglement in quantum systems) that may be of fundamental importance."

Comments on quantum gravity and entanglement (pdf)     

So?

Do they have something in common? Well, to me they both speaks of entanglement, Mark uses the idea to explore if gravity on 'small quantum levels' can be explained as a result of that. What more? That on a practical plane it seems like 'Chaos' is required at some level to increase the probability of those entanglements.

If that is true, and if 'gravity' expresses itself this way on those extremely small levels then?

Could the universe be one entangled state?
Could it also in some sense be a 'quantum computer'?

[yor_on (OP)]

So now you think, 'chaos and entanglement's' huh
Well, read this..

Chloroplasts use of entanglement's to transport solar energy  

It's not often I can combine my interest for the environment with basic physics research but this one is really, really, cool.

[yor_on (OP)]

Here's the PDF..Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light harvesting complexes.

[Farsight]

If that is true, and if 'gravity' expresses itself this way on those extremely small levels then?

Gravity is really simple yor-on. It's far simpler than you ever thought possible, and there's no need to make it all entangled and complicated. 

Could the universe be one entangled state?

No. 

Could it also in some sense be a 'quantum computer'?

No.

Sorry, but there are people who love to make things complicated. Don't be fooled.

[yor_on (OP)]

Well, I wasn't discussing Gravity here but I keep on wondering

As for 'complicated'?
I wrote somewhere that my opinion is that physics consistently fight for getting it as simple as possible?
And I would like to agree to that proposition, but I'm not sure the universe does.

I'm starting to lean more and more to the universe possibly being frightfully 'simple' albeit in a non-linear way, and that way we just started to explore, like chaos theory does. It may be that we need a new approach to mathematical theory to catch up to that 'simplicity'? Non-linearity isn't that popular as it is, that's why we need the mathematical cut-offs. So we can 'adapt' it to linear thinking.

I suspect that the next 'revolution' will come when we find a better proposition for handling non-linearity mathematically . It's not the universe's math that is wrong, it's ours. We come to cutoffs and 'probabilities' when we treat it as a linear problem. I don't know how to treat the math otherwise though But maybe there are someone, somewhere, that have another way of seeing it? And if there is we better test it.

[yor_on (OP)]

And I think the source of the way we think can be traced to times apparent linearity

'Times arrow' in other words. That's what we build around, from our birth to our grave. That is also what makes all life possible, as far as I understand it. Without an arrow how would we ever have a 'history' to learn from? But if I got Einstein right(?) he says that both 'distances' and 'time' is an expression from the 'frame of reference' you find yourself to be in. Now that is all good and true, but the big problem is how those 'frames' should be expressed, well, to me it is?

Do my body also contain time-dilations, depending on my atoms, electrons, particles mass and speed? What makes me think I'm, ah, 'all together' if that is true? And with time you also will find length-contractions ( Is that why I'm not taller? To me it's very confusing to understand 'frames of reference', do we think that there are some 'threshold' from where 'frames of reference' can be defined?

I don't know, do you?

Anyway, if I understood the ideas correct we all have a personal invariant time-frame, unchangeable in all 'frames of reference', macroscopically at least. That is what makes time have this arrow, nothing else. That we then find different frames express a time dilation relative each other is another matter. Why I state it this way is because I do believe I'm 'all together' as I'm able experience myself as such, those possible microscopic 'time-dilations' notwithstanding.

The other way to see it is that we all consists of time-dilations, never ending, depending on from where you observe. That one gives me a headache.