Virtual Reality Theory

[nebulaJP]

At one time, geocentric cosmology was mainstream while the heliocentric model was on the fringe. Heliocentrism was always the best explanation for observed phenomena but was resisted at first by the mainstream for intuitive, political and theological reasons.

Today, there is a similar debate between mainstream science which maintains the positive claim that physical reality is objective, self-existent and self contained versus those in support of virtual reality theory, that our space-time is the digital output of nonphysical, quantum processing. Scientific discoveries of the past two centuries make Objective Reality Theory seem less plausible while Virtual Reality Theory explains observed phenomena better.

Here are two charts (samples to save space, see links for actual charts) that demonstrate the two debates. In my opinion, the second theory of each chart explains the phenomena best.



Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Theory Comparison Study Sheet - Chabot College Astronomy - Scott Hildreth



Table 8. - pages 39 & 40:
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT4.pdf

What do you think? Is reality objective? Are we and our surroundings actually 'here' existing objectively or are our space-time and experiences a virtual output of processing in a quantum reality?

 

[sfs]

At one time, geocentric cosmology was mainstream while the heliocentric model was on the fringe. Heliocentrism was always the best explanation for observed phenomena but was resisted at first by the mainstream for intuitive, political and theological reasons.

Today, there is a similar debate between mainstream science which maintains the positive claim that physical reality is objective, self-existent and self contained versus those in support of virtual reality theory, that our space-time is the digital output of nonphysical, quantum processing. Scientific discoveries of the past two centuries make Objective Reality Theory seem less plausible while Virtual Reality Theory explains observed phenomena better.

Here are two charts (samples to save space, see links for actual charts) that demonstrate the two debates. In my opinion, the second theory of each chart explains the phenomena best.

View attachment 131329

Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Theory Comparison Study Sheet - Chabot College Astronomy - Scott Hildreth

View attachment 131330

Table 8. - end of chapter:
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT4.pdf

What do you think? Is reality objective? Are we and our surroundings actually 'here' existing objectively or are our space-time and experiences a virtual output of processing in a quantum reality?

I skimmed as far as this sentence: "The standard model is based on the idea that all reality consists of particles, which it divides into light-like bosons that don’t collide. . ." That statement is incorrect; I don't see any point in reading speculation about the foundations of physics from someone who doesn't understand elementary physics.

 

[nebulaJP]

I skimmed as far as this sentence: "The standard model is based on the idea that all reality consists of particles, which it divides into light-like bosons that don’t collide. . ." That statement is incorrect; I don't see any point in reading speculation about the foundations of physics from someone who doesn't understand elementary physics.

Please explain. Bosons are force carrier particles that can occupy the same quantum state as other bosons. They don't collide with or exert force upon other bosons.

"The Bose–Einstein statistics apply only to those particles not limited to single occupancy of the same state—that is, particles that do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle restrictions. Such particles have integer values of spin and are named bosons, after the statistics that correctly describe their behaviour. There must also be no significant interaction between the particles."

Bose–Einstein statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand,

[SIZE=+0]"Only one fermion may occupy any quantum state."[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]

Two kinds of 'things...'
[/SIZE]

 

[sfs]

Please explain. Bosons are force carrier particles that can occupy the same quantum state as other bosons. They don't collide with or exert force upon other bosons.

"The Bose–Einstein statistics apply only to those particles not limited to single occupancy of the same state—that is, particles that do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle restrictions. Such particles have integer values of spin and are named bosons, after the statistics that correctly describe their behaviour. There must also be no significant interaction between the particles."

Bose–Einstein statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand,

[SIZE=+0]"Only one fermion may occupy any quantum state."[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]

Two kinds of 'things...'
[/SIZE]

You're confusing two things here. Bosons can indeed occupy the same quantum state as other bosons, unlike fermions. Further, bosons, when their interaction is negligible obey Bose-Einstein statistics. Similarly, fermions, when their interaction is negligible, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Both classes of particles, however, can and do interact. Photons, Ws and Zs (the carriers of the weak force), which are all bosons, can scatter off other vector bosons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Please explain. Bosons are force carrier particles that can occupy the same quantum state as other bosons. They don't collide with or exert force upon other bosons.

Gluons not only carry the QCD force, but since gluons have 'color' charge, they are affected by the QCD force itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[nebulaJP]

You're confusing two things here. Bosons can indeed occupy the same quantum state as other bosons, unlike fermions. Further, bosons, when their interaction is negligible obey Bose-Einstein statistics. Similarly, fermions, when their interaction is negligible, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Both classes of particles, however, can and do interact. Photons, Ws and Zs (the carriers of the weak force), which are all bosons, can scatter off other vector bosons.

OK, I think what he was getting at is, in the Standard model, there are some bosons, such as photons, that don't interact or collide with each other directly:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge."

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

….and matter particles, fermions, that do interact or collide with each other directly (by exchanging bosons). Generally speaking, bosons mediate interactions among fermions and it is these interactions of matter particles that provide structure to forms, such as chemistry.

"The Standard Model explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces"

"Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other."

The Standard Model | CERN

This boson/fermion distinction, such as the distinction between light and matter, is made in the Standard Model. On the other hand, in the processing model there are no force carriers so no boson/fermion distinction is made. Light and matter are both expressions of the same Planck program, the photon (see pg. 35)