0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes, I know JP, but so many connect it to a hologram, finding that one proving the next one. And I still stand by repeatable experiments being the grounding stone from where theory need to be proven, or a hypothesis.
And the entanglement in this case can be done with a beamsplitter, separating one photon into two, down converting the original photons energy 1 to two photons of .5, in where the subsequent photons now will have opposite polarizations (spin) and so be 'entangled'.
The weird thing about entanglements are that they are supposed to instantly set their states as fast as you measure on one. Either you can assume some hidden parameter creating the 'spins', at their creation? Or you can assume a entanglement to ignore distance and light speed.
Also, there is no way for you to know what the spin will be on the particle you measure on, before the measurement. It has a 50% chance to be 'up' or 'down'. But no matter what polarization/spin it is found to be, the other particle will 'know' and set the opposite.
Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?
My main point still withstands, if someone feel itself qualified to define a holographic universe I will be very interested, as long as I get it in the clearest words possible.
And I think I said I knew it? I used it as reply not to you. Why not read the post above to see what I was replying too?
Well, it's about possible interpretations, and what they will do to ones formulation, and theory, relative experiments. I'm old fashioned I like experiments proving a point.