The nature of the world is really quantum.
And God, it’s really a roll of dice…
The term “quantum entanglement” can be said to have been the most frequently referred to in recent years by the general mass media in the field of quantum physics, in addition to quantum computers.
There are, of course, a number of terms associated with quantum entanglements that are often mentioned in the media.
Quantum-encrypted communications, dense coding, Quantum Invisible Transmission, etc.
One of the important reasons why these terms are frequently mentioned is that they are one of the most advanced technologies in the realms of amazing quantum technology that is closest to operationalization.
At the same time, our country is at the forefront of that technology.
That is why the media, too, love to mention the scientific achievements and honours we have achieved in this area, and by the way, to spread these cold scientific terms.
My country’s Quantum Communications Technology News (source: Xinhua Vision Point)
So what’s a quantum entanglement?
Is it possible, as has been described in some media, to help people to achieve absolute security in remote communication, to construct a secure network of communications that is unobstructable and unheard of, or to achieve over-light transmission that ignores distance?
In addition, can this phenomenon be the same as previous quantum phenomena, and can we use the virtual world perspective to help in understanding and understanding?
Let’s not rush, let’s get some basic knowledge.
Let’s see what quantum entanglement means.
Quantum entanglements are, in fact, a special multiparticle coupling that occurs in the microworld.
In general, it’s just a few particles that have become a whole system.
However, they are not a whole but a whole system, which means that each particle remains separate and can be separated.
But in their relationship, they have an integral and indivisible link.
Once this entanglement of particles is established, these entangled particles, wherever they may be, can affect each other instantaneously.
And this effect does not disappear with distance.
The impact on each other also does not seem to have any speed constraints.
Quantum entanglement
For example, a pair of entangled particles. Let’s compare them to brothers.
We separate these brother particles from each other, then let them fly in the opposite direction and keep them as far away as possible, for example, from millions or more kilometres.
And then, at this point, we’re looking at some of the properties of one of the “brother particles,” like the spin direction.
Once we see this “brother’s Particle” swinging, another “brother’s Particle” can feel it at the same time, and its brother is being observed.
And so it immediately showed the exact opposite direction of “brother” to keep them completely complementary.
Look at this process. It’s not that complicated.
Perhaps these particles are twirling in the opposite direction when they are separated, and they just keep their angles constant.
So no matter how far you go, you look at one of them and you know the other direction.
Like two shoes, it was a pair.
No matter how far you separate them, you just see one on the left, and you know the other on the right.
Is there anything strange about this?
The problem is certainly not that simple, and scientists are naturally not even curious about this basic relationship.
Scientists have studied the issue in depth and have found that the relationship between tangled particles is not as simple as the persistence of angular dynamics.
They have deeper complementarities.
That’s interesting.
The first thing that came to light was the famous Einstein.
Einstein, it was in the context of the debate with Boer’s Copenhagen school that this issue was raised.
Referring to Einstein and Boer’s century debate, it is time to return to the most exciting era in physical history that we mentioned earlier: the birth of new quantum mechanics.
At that time, there was a heated dispute between Einstein, the proponent of old quantum theory, and the founder of the new quantum theory — the Copenhagen school — represented by Bor.
Einstein, he tried to challenge Bol’s quantum theory with a “light-boxed idea experiment.”
Unfortunately, it did not succeed.
On the contrary, Boer, using Einstein’s own relativity, successfully rebuted Einstein’s first challenge.
But Einstein is certainly not an easy loser.
A few years later, Einstein’s re-emergence once again brought new challenges to Copenhagen.
The weapon Einstein used is a new ideological experiment related to quantum entanglement: the EPR fallacy.
What’s the EPR fallacy question?
The EPR fallacy is based on the relevance of the two particles in a quantum entanglement.
At that time, the “uncertainty” of the quantum and the characteristics of the observation that led to the “dumping” had been recognized.
When two particles are entangled, there will be such a phenomenon.
Only, when two tangled particles are observed, they collapse simultaneously.
When two particles collapse, the opposite complementarities will be maintained.
This phenomenon is already known.
But Einstein says:
If, after a entanglement of the two particles, the two particles are managed to be separated long enough, far enough from each other, and even light spreads long enough, like 100 light years.
At this point, we look at one of the particles, and according to the quantum theory, the state of the other particle is determined at once.
And the two particles, in terms of their properties, need to maintain a “full complementarity”.
So the process of determining this relationship, if it is instantaneous, goes beyond the speed of light.
There are only two possibilities to explain this:
The first possibility is that there is a mechanism that allows information to go beyond the speed of light, to be disseminated and to coordinate their attributes instantaneously;
The second possibility is for the two particles to agree in advance on a state of complementarity and to maintain a relationship of complementarity.
These two possible interpretations actually mean two ways of interpreting the world as a whole:
The former, if we believe it is some kind of super-light-speed mechanism that coordinates two distant particles.
The world, then, seems to have a number of mysterious mechanisms working at the micro- and macro-levels.
And if it were the latter, then it would be a simple question, but we don’t know enough, and there are some hidden parameters of physics that are not found.
The instant synergy between particles is, in fact, a “fake” that is caused by the lack of knowledge at this stage.
How can a great like Einstein agree with the logic of a scoundrel?
Of course he thinks the latter. There must be some kind of hidden variable between the two particles. There are no mysterious mechanisms to regulate their conduct.
Besides, there wasn’t any video games in the year.
So Einstein came up with this EPR false question and told Paul very seriously.
Unless you prove that the relationship between two tangled particles is between the former and not the latter.
Otherwise, your whole quantum mechanics system is wrong.
The world is not what you imagined; it is the Book, the Partite, the True.
Okay, now that they’re playing to Copenhagen, how are they going to meet Einstein’s challenge?
Paul will certainly not easily lose in the face of the challenge.
How can he yield to Einstein’s old theory as one of the founders of quantum theory in the new age?
Even if he hadn’t played video games, Paul would have felt that there must be some kind of deep-seated mechanism behind the world that has broken down the boundaries and the truth.
He responded with determination and prepared an experiment to prove Einstein wrong.
How does Paul prove Einstein wrong?
Paul first had to prove that the harmony between the two particles was much faster than the speed of light.
It’s easier.
We designed an experiment that would lead the two particles to a sufficiently long distance.
Then it would be better to use more time than they might use the speed of light to connect with each other than in their state.
(e.g., in reality, long fibre-optics can be used to separate and direct entangled photons.
Second, Bol has to prove that the coordination between the two particles is instantaneous, not as they were agreed upon.
How can we prove that there is no prior mysterious agreement between the two particles?
As they say, it’s a coincidence to sleep on a pillow.
There’s a big Einstein fan over here.
He is the physicist of Northern Ireland, John Stewart Bell.
After understanding the dispute between the two sides, Bell certainly believed Einstein was right.
How can there be anything in this world that goes against instincts and common sense?
So, to help Einstein, Bell repeatedly thought about the views of both sides.
In 1964, he suddenly thought of a mathematical method that would make both points of view clear.
Bell used an indifferent formula to express the mathematical difference between the two, in terms of coordination.
Bell Instinct
Bell believes that Einstein is right, as long as this kind of inequality is established.
There must be a pre-arranged formula between the two particles.
If it doesn’t work, then Paul is right.
There is no pre-agreed formula between the two particles.
Of course, he thought it was clear that the equation should be established.
Why else wouldn’t he reverse the symbol and use it to counter Bol’s theory?
In any case, however, scientists agree that this variant is the clearest mathematical summary of Einstein and Bor, or whether the world is classic or quantum.
And it’s a better way to prove it.
But how can we, as ordinary readers, understand what this formula is about?
Can we use the virtual game perspective to understand what a bell is?
Sure.
Now we’re trying to explain one of the most important formulas in physics with a game perspective.
So in the Quantum Game of the Virtual World, we use the system to create a pair of treasure boxes, and each one of them has a beautiful butterfly elf.
Gemini.
We know that the butterflies in the chest are only white and black.
And every pair of butterflies in the chest must be the opposite. They are a pair of Twins.
So there’s no doubt that if there’s a pair of treasure boxes, whenever we open one of them and see the color of the butterfly inside, we’ll know the color of the other.
But the designer of this game tells us that there’s a difference between the way this program becomes a treasure box.
In fact, there are two ways to make it happen:
One is to create a pair of double butterflies in advance and then each in a different chest.
So, the way the butterflies are put in the box, we’re called the “Traditional Box.”
And the other one, the one that you opened into one of the two boxes, was the one that immediately implemented the butterfly code.
In the two boxes, a pair of pairs of two-coloured butterflies was immediately generated.
We named it “Quantum Box”.
So the game designer wants to challenge us, and he wants us to try and see if we can see which pair of boxes is the traditional box, which is the quantum box.
This challenge seems unlikely to be met.
Because simple observations after the box has been opened seem to suggest that both forms of the box are identical.
It’s just a double butterfly with the opposite color, and we don’t seem to be able to tell the difference.
Two treasure boxes opened.
However, we are all very patient players, and we have discovered some differences after careful and repeated placing of two different treasure boxes and repeating them a million times.
We found that the butterflies in each chest are actually made up of three parts.
They are “touching” and “wing” and “body.”
Each part may be one of the two colors, black and white.
But every time you open a box, the color on the butterfly is random.
When we open box A, if we see the butterfly elves as “black tentacles” + “white wings” + “black body.”
So when we open another B, the butterfly elves are bound to be white tentacles, black wings, white bodies.
Exactly the opposite.
If a treasure box sees a white tentacle + black wings + black body .
Butterflies in the box must be the black tentacles, white wings, white bodies.
No mistake at all.
So, how can we tell the difference between the two bouquets of butterflies, with their respective colours?
We thought about the logic between the traditional and quantum chests.
Suddenly we realized that the difference between them was whether they had been agreed in advance.
Butterfly elves in the traditional treasure box were created in advance.
There must have been a set of matching options between the two butterflies so that they could be fully complementary.
Butterflyes need to agree on several options?
Because there are three parts of the butterfly that can change color, we can tell by grouping that there are eight scenarios.
Eight sets of traditional treasure chests.
In other words, if it is the traditional way in which the box is created, then the two Butterfly Elves must first use one of these eight sets of formulas to create the colour of the various parts.
Once it’s settled, it can’t change.
And the Quantum Box is different.
The butterflies in the Quantum Treasure Box, which are pre-determined color options, wait to open the box before they are randomly synchronized.
In other words, the butterflies in the Quantum Box are in a superheavy state that may exist in any event.
It had no specific color before it opened.
It has to wait for observations to give it a specific color.
So what difference does it make?
Let’s find another way.
We don’t care, AB treasure box butterflies, the correspondence between the same parts.
Let’s see if AB has a match between butterflies and different parts.
First of all, let’s assume it’s a traditional treasure box, so if we look at the touch of the butterflies in the A box and the match between the wings and the body in the B box.
Because in the traditional box, the correspondence between the two butterflies must be one of the eight sets of programmes.
We don’t look at options 1 and 8, they’re the opposite.
Let’s look at option 2.
Programme 2
In Plan 2, when A’s tentacles are black, they correspond to the white wings and black bodies of B’s treasure box, while black wings correspond to white tentacles and black bodies.
Once the three parts are listed, we’ll find a third, and the opposite is true of the different parts.
And, we’ll find out, that’s the same for the other five.
With the exception of packages 1 and 8, this pattern exists for the remaining six scenarios.
This is a simple mathematical feature created by prior agreement, which can be found in statistical programmes.
For example, we open 10,000 treasure boxes, and always count the correspondence between different parts.
So if it’s a traditional treasure box, the correspondence of this different part of the color must have emerged in strict accordance with the opposite probability of one third.
If not, there’s a ghost.
So, with the opposite probability in the first and eighth scenarios, the reverse ratio of the head to the body of the B box and the colour of the wings of any one of the traditional pairs of butterflies must be above one third.
And that’s what we’ve come up with, a simple mathematical rule that applies to any traditional treasure box.
And that’s the same rule as Bell’s.
It’s just that Bell’s altruistic observation is the spin-off direction of particles on the three xYZ axes.
In short, we know that entangled particles, however observed, are in the opposite direction on each axis.
But didn’t they agree on that before?
We can use this approach just now to check if there is a agreed set of complementarities between them.
If so, it must be possible to discover the existence of an established probability in terms of the rotational direction of different dimensions.
If not, then this probability relationship must not be in line with the Bell heterogeneity.
Scientists then did many tangled particle experiments to test, and found that the results did not match the Bellian formula.
You see, it’s not easy.
The two particles in the Quantum Treasure Box were able to emerge from all possible combinations.
This is no longer explained by common sense.
Bell’s brilliant approach to pink Einstein was finally successful in rejecting Einstein’s ideas.
I don’t know how Einstein would feel if he knew.
But, Paul, it must be very satisfying.
But the whole physics world is not feeling well.
Because there are many scientists who think like Einstein that our world will not be so absurd.
But again and again, our world is so ridiculous!
What exactly does it mean when Bell’s heterogeneity doesn’t exist?
It means that our real world can achieve something as strange as the world of games.
In the world of games, if we separate two Quantum Boxes, for example, one million light years.
At the moment when the box is opened, the treasure box can still be synchronized to create fully complementary elves.
This synchronization process does not take time, so it looks like the two boxes have super-light-speed connections.
But in the world of games, heterogeneity can be violated because space distances in games are virtual and not real.
A code mechanism that easily sets the properties of any position particles in virtual space.
But why is that characteristic in our real world?
Of course, this is a very thought-provoking thing.
The Bell heterogeneity seemed simple and its rationale was indeed simple, but it was one of the most important formulas for modern physics.
Because this seemingly invisible heterogeneity is one of the clearest mathematical differences between the quantum world and the classical world that man understands.
If the formula is set, the quantum world does not exist.
Behind all quantum phenomena is actually some kind of classic law that works, and we have to rethink the whole quantum theory.
But if the formula doesn’t work, then the quantum world is real.
We need to recognize that, in the microworld, it is necessary to abandon the classic form logic of the brain and to accept and acknowledge the strange quantum phenomena.
As a result of this variation, not only is the difference between the quantum world and the classical world so clear, but it is also very favourable to be turned into an experiment for validation.
So since Bell proposed this magical inequity, scientists have been working tirelessly on a variety of experiments to try to verify whether it works or not.
The Nobel Prize for Physics in 2022 coincided with the award of three physicists who had made a significant contribution to the validation of the bell variant.
John F. Clouser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Anton Selinger is also the mentor of our famous quantum physicist, Pan Jianwei, a member of the Academy of Sciences.
In 1972, 1982 and 1998, three distinguished physicists tested the bell in less rigorous experiments.
But the experiment was never perfect.
These experiments, while also drawing conclusions, create possible loopholes because there are always imperfections in their design.
So scientists went over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
After many improvements, the experiment has finally come closer to the ideal of perfection.
In other words, the potential gaps in the experiment have gradually been closed, and now the results of the experiment are almost fully convincing.
The conclusions of numerous experiments are also clear: the quantum phenomenon is real and beyond question.
In 1982, the bell variant was validated by Aspect et al., and quantum theory prevailed.
But there are loopholes in these experiments.
First, there is a local loophole: two entangled photons are too close, and a breach of the bell range may be achieved through a communication channel that is not greater than the speed of light, rather than from the non-locality of quantum theory.
The second is the measurement gap: these experiments are made of photons, which are not efficient enough (the threshold is 82.8 per cent) and cannot be ruled out.
It’s been over 30 years since the Aspect Validation Bell variant began.
Bell heterogeneity has been validated in many systems of photons, atoms, ions, superconductive bits, solid-state quantum bits, and all experiments support quantum theory.
Some photons-based experiments have eliminated local gaps, but were limited to photon detectors ‘ efficiency and did not eliminate measurement gaps.
There are experiments based in part on atoms or ion, and because the ion can be detected at a level of efficiency close to 1, the measurement gap has been removed, but not local.
So far, there has not been an experiment that has been able to remove both local and measurement gaps.
The most recent study was carried out by the Hanson Study Group of the Delft Technical University of the Netherlands.
They published an experimental paper in 2021, reporting on the validation of the bell-like experiments they had completed in the diamond-coloured heart system.
There are a number of reasons for choosing to do this with a diamond-coloured heart.
First, the photons sent by the ecstasy are in visible light bands, with very small losses spread in fibre optics.
Second, it takes a short time to detect the eccentric state, just a few microseconds.
Therefore, in order to avoid local loopholes, it is only necessary to place two diamond-coloured hearts in two laboratories at a distance of 1.3 kilometres.
Using photo-tanglement and entanglement exchange techniques, they have achieved a entanglement between diamond-coloured electrons.
It takes about 4.27 microseconds for two luminous direct photocommunications, while the time to complete an experiment is 4.18 microseconds, 90 ns less than the luminous communication time, thus addressing the local gap.
In addition, the measurement of eccentricity was as efficient as 96 per cent, and the measurement gap was closed.
In sum, they claim to have achieved a non-facing test of the bell variant, supporting the quantum theory on 96 per cent of the confidence (2.1 standard deviations), thus perceiving the local hidden variable theory and rejecting the bell variant again.
Since then, the failure of the Bell variant has become the consensus of scientists as a whole, that is, the nature of our world is indeed quantumized.
Of course, this will bring us more unknown.
At least now, however, we have been able to distinguish the difference between the two types of chests, and we are well placed to judge by looking at the color-relevance statistics of different parts of the butterflies that open up, whether they are quantum or traditional.
And even further, we find that once any Quantum Box has been opened, the Quantum Box becomes the traditional Quantum Box, and if you put the butterfly back in, it will not be the Quantum Box.
It’s also very understandable that, in our programmer’s thinking, all the butterflies in the Quantum Box are so beautifully symmetrical, because they’re just created in pairs, and they can only be perfect for a second moment.
You can’t get that sense of symmetry any more when you’re back there and you can’t manipulate these already well-generated butterflies.
And we use the program to refresh the butterfly process, so as long as the butterfly has been generated, it can’t be changed back into a code and cannot be created again.
So the Quantum Box becomes a traditional Quantum Box, and it’s never going to be the same again.
So the Quantum Box is actually a one-off box.
The technique was quickly used to determine whether a Quantum Box had been opened, because once it had been opened, it was turned into a traditional Quantum Box, which we could judge by watching the butterfly’s behavior, not a Quantum Box, which had already been opened.
It has also been discovered that this magical feature of the Quantum Box is very safe, that it is almost unsolved, and that no one has the means to return the Quantum Box that has been opened, just as we cannot turn the results of a process into a process.
So what’s this amazing feature of the Quantum Box?
So it came to mind that if we put a note to someone else in the Quantum Box at the same time, wouldn’t it prevent people from peeking?
For anyone who wants to look at a note in a Quantum Box must open it, but as long as the Quantum Box has been opened, it will not be restored, so that the person who received the Quantum Box will know if it has been opened or not.
In this way, the Quantum Box can become an absolutely safe “mail seal” in a game, like the ancient fire-painted seal, and once it is sealed, it can guarantee that the information in it will never be seen without breaking the seal.
Only the paint of fire can be forged, and the Quantum Box can never be forged.
Quantum entanglement is the best message seal.
However, as we can see from the metaphor above, it is not enough to see a treasure box open, but to compare two.
In other words, using the Quantum Box for safe communication, we also need a traditional channel to pass on and open the box in a state more than the two Quantum Boxes, so even if the Quantum Box is open at the same time, the security will have to wait for information to be compared in the traditional way.
And the example of this virtual world game that we’re talking about here, as we can all see, is the basic principle of quantum entanglement and the resulting quantum encrypted communication technology.
The Quantum Box is a Quantum pair that symbolizes a entanglement, and the traditional Quantum Box is an ordinary particle pair.
It’s actually our observational behavior.
Therefore, so-called quantum encryption is not an unsolvable encryption algorithm, but rather the use of a tangled quantum to carry the message, which ensures the security of the information, the recipient knows exactly whether or not he/she is the first reader of the information, and does not worry that the quantum pattern is forged.
Quantum encrypted communication actually conveys a classic message, and the speed of transmission does not exceed the speed of light, and is equally likely to be bugged, but undetected.
The measurements that I have discussed describe the means of confidential communication using the measurement characteristics of quantum.
Quantum entanglement is another security option, which is equally a means of communication with the same security.
The security of quantum encryption is based on the state of quantum entanglement that cannot be simulated.
The state of this pair of particles is determined (and you can say it was produced at the same time) at the time of the observation of a entanglement of quantum, and all of them must be in a reverse state of complementarity, which cannot be imitated in any case with traditional particles.
This difference is what J. Bell mathematically describes as the meaning of bells.
Scientists, in order to verify the existence of this complementarity, have tried countless times, and in each case proved that the bell variants were not valid, by separating entangled photons from tens of thousands of kilometres, or even finding more distant entanglement particles in space.
This phenomenon in reality is very difficult to understand, because the two tangled particles are millions of miles apart from each other in physical distance, but they remain compatible beyond time and space, and are certainly not simply explained by the persistence of angular momentum, as if they were not separated at all.
Einstein, after losing to Paul, has been incomprehensible about this inexplicable phenomenon, and even for the rest of Einstein’s life has been fighting these phenomena in the quantum world, which he tried to explain in a traditional way, but which he did not succeed in the end.
Einstein said, “I don’t believe in God’s dice! I’m sorry.
Einstein, of course, does not use this religious expression to show that he believes in God, that he is convinced that everything in the universe is objective and real, so that everything is predictable, that we cannot predict for the time being that there is not enough information or knowledge, and that, ideally, there is no uncertainty in the future.
Unfortunately, faith is full and reality cruel.
In reality, the physical experiments to verify quantum phenomena have proved Einstein wrong over and over again.
Quantum behavior is unpredictable, and God is really throwing dice.
Can you imagine how disheartening it is for Einstein, but Bol even fell to the bottom and responded to Einstein: “Do not command God.”
Paul and Einstein.
You know, Einstein created a great relativity that was based on territoriality and realism, and relativity has also proved right at the macro level.
Two well-known theories of physics contradict each other, but they are all right. Quantum theory has proved to be applicable in the micro and relativity in the macro.
Does that remind you of anything?
In fact, it had happened in physics, the so-called “blue radiation problem”, and the two theories were contradictory, but applied in two different contexts.
In short, it is still very difficult to unify these two theoretical systems so far that no one has been able to do so.
So that’s one of the most advanced objectives of physics today.
But scientists know that whenever there is a conflict between traditional old theories, which cannot be solved by repairing and repair alone, this often bodes well for a major change in physics, often requiring a new theoretical system that suddenly emerges one day, and then completely reshapes and expands the entire physical framework, so that these old theoretical grievances can be fully resolved.
And this theory, the so-called “uniform” theory that scientists have long awaited.
Many scientists believe that once humans have mastered one-size-fits-all theory that reconciles relativity and quantum mechanics, the whole of physics will enter a new dimension and the technological level of humans will follow a leap forward.
That doesn’t sound like what we’re supposed to worry about.
But our Quantum Tours column is one that will show you how to experience such super-values, and in reality the best scientists in humans can hardly do things, and in the virtual world, we can try to understand the inexplicable problems of humans’ top intelligence by flying our minds and opening our minds.
You see, in the virtual world, the myths of quantum entanglement are no longer unusual.
In the virtual world, all the particles are assumed to be a code function in a non-observed state, and the two tangled quantums are actually the same wave function that is recoded together, but the difference is that it’s a “double function” and if we run this twin function, we can get the value of two particles at once.
If that is the case, it would explain very well why two entanglement quantums are so synchronized, because they are the two complementary results of the same function.
No matter how far the two particles are separated from each other at physical distance, they are essentially the same wave function, which is executed and exported to two particles only in a moment when we look at one of them.
So the other state is immediately established, and the state of the two particles must be absolute and fully complementary, because they’re all just created from the same wave function, and this new complementarities is the only way to fit the bell’s mathematical constraint.
So the bell heterogeneity actually proves that the two particles were just occurring at the time of observation, rather than in advance, because two particles in advance could not be so consistent after long-distance transmission and could not meet the bell heterogeneity constraints.
Einstein said that if quantum physics is self-conforming, then the world’s territoriality and reality must be abandoned.
And Einstein always insisted that neither of them would give up, because his relativity was based on both.
So he turned around and tried to prove that quantum physics itself was unconvincing, and he presented yet another false attempt to overturn the quantum theory, which unfortunately did not succeed, and which he presented later became counter-argument, making quantum physics more and more solid, which was a problem that Einstein had been unable to forgive in late years.
So how do we see the fixation and realism in the virtual world?
If analysed from the point of view of the virtual world, the procedural relevance behind that virtual world is the fundamental source of the mysterious harmony between tangled particles.
So is this a given domain, it seems, that the virtual world is still fixed, because the transmission of information does not go beyond the speed of light and the collapse of wave functions does not count as the transmission of information.
So, is that true?
This seems to have been challenged, and can we say that a code exists before it is executed?
It’s like asking the player, does BOSS exist before you enter the map?
Players must answer that they do not know, that is to say that the specific properties of the particles before they are observed are not real and only likely.
So when we read the world from the perspective of the virtual world, we actually abandoned the physical world and insisted that the world was defined.
In our virtual world, we provide that no information can be transmitted at speeds beyond the speed of light, and that there can never be interaction between objects outside the light cones, but these objects are not real, they are essentially codes, not results, and they do not even exist objectively when you do not observe them, so only these non-objective properties allow for an invisible bottom-level connection between tangents to reconcile each other ‘ s properties, so that they can be observed at a time when they are trans-domain-connected and do not destroy a fixed territoriality.
As you see, our perception of the virtual world that we have built has gone a step further, and we now know that our virtual world is defined but not real, that we have abandoned it, but that we have preserved it to ensure the greatest light speed in the universe, that relativism remains valid and that quantum physics is still in place, and that they have finally resolved their contradictions and unified in the virtual world.
Well, isn’t that a magical perspective?
It is a pity that Einstein did not have a cyber game in that year, and he did not see what a non-real virtual object was like, otherwise he might change his mind.
However, we left a final question.
Why would the world be haunted if it were virtual?
In other words, why does the programmer who created our world have to share the N particles in a wave function?
In fact, we can ask the senior mannon of the real world about this.
Asking any experienced competitor, he will tell you that it is natural and normal that when we develop any software, if we can achieve the same or even more similar experience in different ways, it is important to apply the most concise and resource-efficient approach, if not necessary, without additional costs.
This is almost the highest doctrine of programmers, and any experienced programmer knows that he should not be too concerned about the eccentric needs of certain obscurantists or spend too much effort to prevent some technical hackers from seeking out the details of the system.
A good development engineer knows more about how to meet the normal needs of 99% of ordinary users in a simpler way than waste too much time on very few users.
Only inexperienced new rookies would spend more than N’s resources and energy to deal with these troublesome users.
If the technical director finds out that the system is so swollen, he will have to be rewritten.
Angry boss.
Thus, for particles that simulate the virtual world, since multiple particles have been tangled, programmers simplify and merge them, using a function to streamline them in order to save as much as possible resources, which is normal and reasonable.
If we look at the design of the game, it is also very common to use it.
One of the most common applications is in the SLG-type strategic game, where many of the soldiers who form the formation are treated as objects when the game designers want to show a troupe.
This will simplify the calculation while maintaining a good square formation.
Legion Array in the Full War Game
These clusters of computer soldiers, which are treated as a single unit, are, in fact, a entangled collection of individuals who act in a coherent manner, in a consistent direction and on a consistent order, and who, if they are inadvertently separated on the map, maintain a fairly high degree of operational consistency, as they remain a whole in the logic of calculation.
Army units in the wake of God.
This computational entanglement of clusters, no matter how far some of them are separated, you can see that they are far more consistent than others, and you can easily distinguish them from scattered individual units, and no matter how we work with scattered individuals, we cannot achieve such a high degree of coherence between the entangled clusters unless we separate them in one way or another.
Most games, however, do not have this function, because it is clear that breaking them up will bring more uncontrolled calculations to the system.
However, it is clear that our real world can do so, and that our universe, while not saving time and time, does not mean that it will be cheap enough for us to write games, otherwise we will discover not quantum entanglement, but quantum integration.
However, the biggest problem with disassembly quantum entanglement systems is not simply to increase costs, but to create cognitive confusion in some cases.
A entanglement particle would have been calculated using the same function, and in most cases no strange problems would have arisen.
But there are a few super-love scientists who, like the scavengers, begin to try to get to the entanglement of the particle system once they find the suspect.
Until in one experiment, scientists discovered that if they separate the tangled particles to a remote location, they discovered the problem of the coordination of their extra-distance instantaneousity, which was of great interest to scientists.
In fact, like our SLG game, virtual games are not real, they make up the whole world of logic and time series, and space is simulated by images.
So when scientists physically separate the tangled particles, they do not change the fact that they are calculated in the logic of the system or by the same function, so when the last scientists see the tangled particles to be forced back, the system, of course, ignores the fictional space distance, and immediately completes the separate settlement value of the distant particle state.
This operation of the system is actually exposing our world to the illusion of space: So when the system had to complete the necessary logical settlement, no amount of space distance would in fact have created any barrier, since the operation of such a settlement was not essentially a movement and did not convey any information, so naturally there was no speed limit.
You see, our scientists, like the crooked hackers, exposed the logical flaws in the system algorithms through a variety of extreme experiments, which led us to the absurdities at the bottom of the world.
And they’re as if they’ve discovered the truth of the model under the world’s posters in a cyber game, and they’re surprised and surprised, and they’re arguing about these.
In fact, from a technical point of view, the Creator’s approach is simply a common programming tool to save the resources of the machine.
And you look at it carefully and you see that, actually, the creators of our universe have always adhered to the principle that we want to express as many phenomena as possible with as few functions as possible.
This is the case for double-suture intervention, and this is the case for late selection, as is the case for particle homogeneity, and so is the phenomenon of tangle.
Various experiments have proved time and again that our cosmos system can always be saved, that without observation there will never be an increase in the number of calls for functions, and that it does not matter if there will be any logical paradox after the event.
After all, who dares question God? Case number: YXA13xbkLkyH3Nr4dngvRv0
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
