[mxplxxx (OP)]

Here is what the Copilot AI thought of my theory.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkkAzGDByUeBp_MzZqynBNSQYm5NrQ?e=BHQmbe

PS if you are not computer-literate, the theory maybe won't make much sense. Otherwise, no Photon seems to solve a lot of Physics problems. 🆒

[alancalverd]

Well, despite being computer-literate, after spending an evening  apparently not actually watching football but actually following England's defeat by psychic image transfer, I've just spent a profitable day measuring the energy of something that doesn't exist. Please don't tell my client, or the guy who sold me the television!

The clever bit is that when I push the button on the remote control, everyone in the room is programmed to "see" the same game, but The Boss, in another room, thinks she is seeing CNN News . So psychic program selection  only works if everyone is facing the same box, and even when you have been programmed to receive it, closing your eyelids or walking out of the room temporarily interrupts the nonphotonic transfer of data.

So far so good, but if I walk into the other room, I "see" CNN News without having been programmed to do so!

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Well, despite being computer-literate, after spending an evening  apparently not actually watching football but actually following England's defeat by psychic image transfer, I've just spent a profitable day measuring the energy of something that doesn't exist. Please don't tell my client, or the guy who sold me the television!

The clever bit is that when I push the button on the remote control, everyone in the room is programmed to "see" the same game, but The Boss, in another room, thinks she is seeing CNN News . So psychic program selection  only works if everyone is facing the same box, and even when you have been programmed to receive it, closing your eyelids or walking out of the room temporarily interrupts the nonphotonic transfer of data.

So far so good, but if I walk into the other room, I "see" CNN News without having been programmed to do so!

Hey Alan,
You have come down a bit from "Drivel".😎. The thing is, with Quantum Theory almost everything thought to be impossible isn't. I am still working on doing the impossible with Leucine. I look forward to sharing my findings soon. At the moment I have no need for a Photon to simulate a Leucine molecule.  PS what you are measuring is indirect. The fact that you can't measure a Photon directly seems to be a good indicator that there is something to my theory.
💡💡💡

[hamdani yusuf]

PS what you are measuring is indirect. The fact that you can't measure a Photon directly seems to be a good indicator that there is something to my theory.

What does it mean to measure directly?

[alancalverd]

If you accept that energy is conserved  (it is after all the definition of energy) then the temperature rise of a material that has absorbed a photon is the ultimately direct measurement of the photon energy.

If you don't accept that energy is a conserved quantity, what do you think it is?

And I don't retract "drivel". My last reply merely explains why your assertion was drivel.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If photon theory has been made obsolete by Quantum Entanglement, a whole new theory derived from the old physics awaits. Not my interest.

Whatever energy is, all systems in 4Abstractions will likely start with the same amount of it (h in E=hf?). There will also likely  be an energy density value that is influenced by the volume of the system at hand, Reality may be similar.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

And I don't retract "drivel". My last reply merely explains why your assertion was drivel.

The thing is, the original Quantum Mechanics was probably also considered to be drivel. You seem to be devoting a lot of time to something you consider to be drivel. 😎

Did you realise your TV example has shades of Schrodinger's cat about it and is easily (if you know what you are doing) simulated via Quantum Computing - minus photons?

A brain is a type of quantum computer. It can work with superpositions, entanglement and probabilities.

Whatever computers can simulate, so can Reality.
The simulation IS Reality, especially to a brain that is experiencing it. i.e. If a brain can experience a simulation as Reality, why cannot Reality itself be a simulation?

[hamdani yusuf]

The simulation IS Reality

How do you define simulation?
How do you define Reality?
How will they affect your decision making process when they are the same?
How will they affect your decision making process when they are difference?

[Bored chemist]

Here is what the Copilot AI thought of my theory.

So, even Copilot "realises" that it needs further work.
Why don't you?

[Bored chemist]

If photon theory has been made obsolete by Quantum Entanglement

The most important word there is "if".

[Bored chemist]

The fact that you can't measure a Photon directly seems to be a good indicator that there is something to my theory.

What can you measure "directly"?
For example, how do I measure an electric current "directly"?

[alancalverd]

Whatever energy is, all systems in 4Abstractions will likely start with the same amount of it (h in E=hf?).

Drivel. h is not a unit of energy.

why cannot Reality itself be a simulation?

A simulation of what?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Whatever energy is, all systems in 4Abstractions will likely start with the same amount of it (h in E=hf?).

Drivel. h is not a unit of energy.

What I meant was my idea of energy density will be related in some way to Planks constant h. I hope that has cleared up my initial badly expressed idea. Personally, I would not use "drivel" when addressing someone's attempt to put forward a physics theory. I would point out the incorrectness of the attempt and how it could be improved if possible.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, even Copilot "realises" that it needs further work.
Why don't you?

Because I like antagonising you.😠
Seriously, great to see you have looked up my Copilot discussion. This discussion was about applying my theory to the development of AI "sight" (a theory which the AI liked very much). It was never meant to be a finished product.

[alancalverd]

Personally, I would not use "drivel" when addressing someone's attempt to put forward a physics theory. I would point out the incorrectness of the attempt and how it could be improved if possible.

I did. The only cure for drivel is to abandon it, apply common sense, and learn some elementary physics - in this case, that you can't see the TV picture if you close your eyelids.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Personally, I would not use "drivel" when addressing someone's attempt to put forward a physics theory. I would point out the incorrectness of the attempt and how it could be improved if possible.

I did. The only cure for drivel is to abandon it, apply common sense, and learn some elementary physics - in this case, that you can't see the TV picture if you close your eyelids.

People who suck at learning from my genius, I generally just ignore. 🍭

[paul cotter]

Hmm, delusions of grandeur.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Hmm, delusions of grandeur.

Or tongue in cheek😎

[Bored chemist]

I would point out the incorrectness of the attempt

He did.

[Bored chemist]

This discussion was about applying my theory to the development of AI "sight" (a theory which the AI liked very much). It was never meant to be a finished product.

Then it's not a scientific theory and you should stop mislabelling it.