if you mean chemical potential energy then its non existant , its the chance of something happening not any force that is currently exisiting and if it is string theory were talking about here the second a reaction occurs you have the chemical potential energy “released” when its not acctually doing anything as it already gained the energy state from performing work.
Well, if you want to be pedantic and fun at parties, you could say that most of what we say happens in regards to physics and similar subjects “doesn’t exist” because it’s all just theories. Example: fields (electric, magnetic, etc) don’t exist, we have never and don’t know how to prove their existence. But they are the current best model that seems to work for our universe.
And now this thread has gone full circle.
Just like time is relative?
Until you can actually prove how something works (if we could we could definitely simulate the universe, ha) any scientific theory may or may not be correct. Therories have been beleived for years only to be proven incorrect or incomplete later. Example: Newtonian mechanics.
Note that these “disproven” theories are usually still useful (refer to the example).
Edit: that being said, special and general relativity have held up very well so far. Check out GPS satellites for an everyday example of something that simply doesn’t work without them.
If you only simulate interesting parts of universe with high accuracy. Lazy evaluation could explain quantum mechanic oddities.
Not quite. Only when you have side effects. The idea of lazy evaluation is that every program fed into the lazy evaluation program that was written strictly should give exactly the same result. It was just computed in a different way.
But I get the idea. Just wanted to say that it’s not like the universe is a lazy simulation.
@lcass a processor is all about communication, any circuit is… sending a signal from A to B
with quantum entanglement this speed increases from C to infinite/instantaneously. how will that make a cpu not faster ?
Maybe not your universe!
Cat s_cat = new Cat();
s_cat.isDead(); // <-- lazily evaluated
Thats a very interesting idea. However seems to be absolute conjecture. Just because we do computing and know something that behaves similarly
Yeah. And no one ever found out that the cat is dead until they called [icode]s_cat.isDead()[/icode]. If they had, it would have evaluated. This is exactly what schroedinger’s katze is.
And now comes the moment where I say “Oooooh I get it.”.
Sorry 
So who said that the cat is not yet evaluated? How come they know that? ôo
My point was: You shouldn’t notice the oddities if it were truely lazyly evaluated…
Lazy evaluation does not imply determinism, although it’s highly prefered. On a side note: what’s that smell? Will we ever know?
I forget where I saw it, but there was a really good video explaining Schrodinger’s Cat and why/how people get it wrong most of the time.
I’ll post it here if I find it.
It’s the smell of Science!
I think it’s functional programming. The smell is becoming stronger and stronger. But I hope I don’t derail this thread 
[quote]But I hope I don’t derail this thread
[/quote]
This thread has no straight rail, or it should not have one since all these topics lead to all the other ones.
Let it go.
This thread has no straight rail, or it should not have one since all these topics lead to all the other ones.
Let it go.
[/quote]
Yeah, but at least it was about science. And I don’t want to start a discussion about programming languages in a java forum ;D
Well theorys in a dictionary definition are ideas with support evidence. They are proven to functions , fields yes we cannot prove the particles that go through them however we know they are there , what I am describing is a potential for something to happen which is basically “The energy it could release” it doesnt directly describe the reaction or energy state of the specific medium. Fields are … complicated they incooperate multiple theorys and change depending on which model you describe them with , the most accepted version suggest they are made up of virtual particles that are only in existence for the purpose of generating the feild and therefore cannot be detected externally . You can think of them as existant but when you attempt to access them you dont get anything returned.
for example
public class virtualphoton{
public void getparticle(){
return null; //<------
}
}
There are other examples of this , famously the double slit experiment in which electrons were proven to be able to switch between the state of a particle and a wave ( which is suggested because they do not have a defined size). When observed however the result given was not as expected. heisenberg uncertainty principle yet another example.
So… you agree with me? It’s hard to tell exactly what your point is.
The actual question is ofcourse: Is the universe simulatable in java? hint hint wink wink
It means that all weird stuff thats happening with quantum mechanica (the observer influences the experiment), happens because we are simulated. When you are not looking, its not rendered (optimizing), therefore has a superposition state.
Yes. Why not? Interactions are easier when you embed N dimensions is a higher number.
Notice that nobody (other than Riven) have made a nod to the math. From the paper I linked:
This paper quantifies the amount of information that the universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history. The universe can have performed no more than 10120 ops on 1090 bits.
Translating the ops into pot: ~2399 operations. You see what I mean?