>"observable universe" is not the entire universe

There's a lot of curious stuff about our universe which makes for suspicions about it being a simulation.

To your final question, it depends what you mean by "a universe." We could make a pretty solid simulation of a universe with two point particles having only a single property of force (e.g., an attractive square-law thing resembling gravity) and limited laws of physics which use such complex constants as "1" and "also 1." I think that you need to set the bar on how close to our own universe this simulation should be.

>>60080891
a universe without macfags

File: 88b7d24322f5042d8a04ebd2403a3e65.jpg (127KB, 540x1391px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 540x1391px

>>60080891

File: face_disgust.jpg (23KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x720px

>>60080833
install gentoo

>>60080891
you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded

Why is the speed of light the current interpretation of 'c' anyway? Why isn't it faster or slower? In fact, since light has no mass, why isn't its speed infinite?

>>60081078
/sci/ might be able to give an answer.

Afaik there's no real reason, it's just one of those "How the universe works" bits. And while science can come to describe rules of interaction in the universe, it can't explain why the rules are the way they are.

>>60081078
The speed of light isn't an interpretation of c. It's what (in a vacuum) is represented by c. But for interpreting it, you should think of it more as the rate by which everything in the universe moves through spacetime. Some or all of that motion can be space-like or time-like.

As for your latter two questions, I'm not sure there's ever a way to figure out why the universe is configured the way it is. Your question could be extended to "why does any constant (if they are even constant) have the value which it does?" I dunno. They just do.

File: 1490457304148.jpg (177KB, 528x516px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 528x516px

>>60081078
Its speed IS "infinite" so to speak, from the perspective of the photon. No time passes between its emission and its absorption from its perspective.

The constant c has more to do with the propagation of information through the universe. How long until we "know" something happens, and since light is the only massless and therefore "instant" thing we can measure, we measure how long until we "know" about the light.

>>60081078
>since light has no mass
you dumb fuck

File: rage_nerd.jpg (160KB, 676x1000px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 676x1000px

>>60081148
you know what he's saying

>>60081134
that's awesome. Computation is the moist noble and holy of activities

>>60081078
While the particle has no mass, it does technically have relativistic mass. I could be wrong though since my physics is rusty.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum

>>60081170
...we run on TempleOS?

File: 1460703449319.jpg (31KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x600px

>>60080833
OUR UNIVERSE IS A SIMULATION

>>60081255
Hey man don't go yet. If it is, maybe we can access its API and do some crazy shit

>>60080833
Not a physics expert but, can quantum entanglement exceed the speed of light?
assuming that whatever message that is passed from a to b is encoded and decoded in a negligibly short time.

>>60081293
I'm not 100% on this, but I believe the answer is yes, it exceeds the speed of light.

This suggests the universe is warped in a way that these entangled particles are closer to each other in higher dimensions.

>>60080833

humans are limited by their own instruments when looking at the universe. I like to think that our species has the potential to transcend to the different dimension of existence.

>>60081456
you'd be wrong

File: cat_eyes.jpg (9KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 126x126px

>>60081456
ur mum was limited by my instrument m8

>>60081239
no but it is the one thing that can bring you closer to becoming god. The more computational power you wield the more holy you become. God is the machine

>>60081293
Nope.

>>60080993
So all neckbeards and gaymer kids?

>>60081563
ideally: all neckbeard guys and gaymer girls

>>60081682
The reality: legbeard females and COD boys

File: face_Wat.png (19KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 210x230px

>>60081682

File: LkARIDr.png (137KB, 526x436px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 526x436px

If the universe is really a simulation, it was likely created to study dark matter. You know, the stuff that makes up 99% of the fucking thing. Life is an errata, footnote or on a "Todo: Fix this" list somewhere.

File: face_kid.png (380KB, 622x411px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 622x411px

>>60081758
ur mum makes up 99% of the fucking thing m8

Quantum Physics only exists to save processing power

How do we hack the matrix?
We first need to know if that is possible. For that, we need to run a simulation with a AI, and prove that it can hack itself.

>>60082103
bitch plz we discussin like adults

>Hack the matrix
We don't wake up
Instead our universe gets reset

File: cat_omg.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>60082308
That's fine, whatever makes me stop feeling my feelings

>>60081325
>>60081518
>>60081293
It can, it's absolutely instantaneous. This is what's causing a lot of the problems in Quantum right now, we have several explanations but no way to prove one over the others.

For example one theory suggests that when particles entangle and move apart they gain some sort of intrinsic property that tells them how to behave (in some ways) once they're apart. (obviously simplified, but you get the picture)

The entire reason for all this theoretical acrobatics is to avoid the requirement for information to travel faster than light, because otherwise entanglement would involve this.

>>60081293
>>60082425
No, it can't. It's literally first google result:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15282/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-speed-of-light
tldr: Collapsing an entangled pair occurs instantaneously but can never be used to transmit information faster than light.

To transmit information faster than light would be to completely fuck up causality. It's simply impossible wiht our current understanding of the universe, and for it to be possible, everything in physics would have to be disproved including theory of relativity which is """not likely""".

>>60082543
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication

>>60081484
I lold

>>60080833
are you me?

>>60082543
So by observing it, it ceases to be. Is that a good summary of it?

>>60082543
OK, let me rephrase: the effects travel faster than light but nothing physically does. That was what I was trying to highlight with my explanation of one of the leading theories; they all end up bending over backwards to avoid superluminal travel.

File: kb.jpg (27KB, 410x604px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 410x604px

>>60083904
i bent ur mum over backwards to cum in her arsehole u pinky

>>60081148
>he's dumb for not fully understanding a complicated subject
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Light speed being max is such a meme
Just get a light year long stick and move it.
U magically transmitted at over speed of light

File: retard_patriot.jpg (91KB, 400x592px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 400x592px

>>60084147
2/10

>>60080993
Its perfect!

>>60080833
What's the chance I can glitch into the wall, as the square root of a trillion?

>>60081285
I think the dev is a retard tho.
Hope he cries when he reads this

>>60080833
never havee perfect simulation
but we'll have it good enough to trick anyone into believing it's perfect
so eh.

>>60081293
>Not a physics expert but, can quantum entanglement exceed the speed of light?
Yes, but as far we know, no actual information can be transferred via quantum entanglement, if that was possible the I think would have to rethink our understanding of relativistic physics

>>60081484
>>>/b/

File: solve (6).png (1007KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 1920x1080px

>>60080833
Something that's even more absurd is the AdS/CFT correspondence, which basically states that the current theory of spacetime with "opposite gravity" can be mapped onto a scale-invariant field theory on its surface, meaning that if this correspondence can be extended to the case with theories of spacetime with the "regular gravity" all information contained within the universe only actually exists on the surface of the universe, and us 3D beings are nothing but holographic projections from it. And since scale-invariant field theories are used to describe many-body quantum systems (such as magnetic/conducting materials) it can be postulated that our universe is nothing but another manifestation of a condensed matter system.

>>60087097
So does this mean that all girls are actually 2D?

File: __drawn_by_hinemosu_notari__f7c65ed22c3153f04a3590068455d890.jpg (222KB, 584x800px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 584x800px

>>60087251
Yes and all the cute anons too.

File: 1491128690703.jpg (59KB, 480x570px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 480x570px

>>60087509
(o^_^o)

>>60080833
>>"observable universe" is not the entire universe
please explain how that relates to game engines

>>60087589
It's like a fog of war or something.

>>60087603
but its not a "built in feature" or "limitation" of the universe we live in. its just a consequence of the age out universe.

>>60087630
Is it?

>>60080833
>we cant see whats behind us
>just like in videogames
muh high school philosophy

File: b7d.png (66KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x1000px

>>60080833
really innervates the noggin's neurological nodes

>>60083995
stop

>>60081285
Somebody needs to figure out how to inject and execute arbitrary code IRL already, there has to be some way to do it.

>>60087992
Is it called "magic?"

>>60080833
>speed at which information can propagate has an upper limit
That doesn't save processing power, because you still have to render the parts that are far away in real time, the information just takes a lot of time to get here.
>"observable universe" is not the entire universe
The "observable universe" is dependent on where you are. If you were in a galaxy 10 billion light years away, you could see a bunch of shit that is outside of our observable universe. So unless they literally put the Earth in the middle, it's not really an optimization.
>planck length and planck time
AFAIK those don't imply that space is discrete and not continuous (so no optimization), just that our current understanding of physics can't model things below a certain size.
>wave function collapse upon query
I don't see how that would be an optimization, seems more like a weird quirk to me.

>>60081484
got 'em good

>>60081134
Is light is massless, why does it have momentum??????

>>60081293
It's instantaneous but you can't transmit information about the first bit to the people watching the second bit instantaneously, so it's useless for trying to transmit information faster than light.

>>60087589
Minecraft kek