36 ms·

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe

• wodencafe 10y ago
  What does this mean? The universe is fake? Is this along the same lines as "everything is a simulation"?
  • yannis 10y ago
    Think of it, as if God is pulling a joke on us or the physicists.
    • knightofmars 10y ago
      Why all the down-votes? I'm an atheist and I found this comment amusing.
    • durango 10y ago
      Can you elaborate on this slightly? Genuinely interested
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • QuantumRoar 10y ago
    Nope, not fake. Just another way to look at it. From the paper: "One of the deepest insights about quantum gravity that emerged in recent times is that it is expected to be holographic [1–3], meaning that there should be an equivalent description of the bulk physics using a quantum field theory with no gravity in one dimension less. One may thus seek to use holography to model the very early Universe."
  • jameskilton 10y ago
    Holographic theory is not the same as the universe being a simulation. I have only done basic reading and following of the idea but as I understand things, the "holographic" universe is about figuring out how our experience is encoded in the fabric of the cosmos. It's another step in trying to find the universal equation that works at the big (gravity / relativity) and the small (quantum). If the holographic information is itself a simulation is another level of discussion entirely!
    • smrtinsert 10y ago
      Does this mean it could be theoretically possible to warp between two locations utilizing the 2d properties of the unprojected universe?
  • hvs 10y ago
    IANAP, but no, it's saying that our current 4-dimensional spacetime is a holographic projection from an earlier 2-D phase of our universe. Not that it is currently 2-dimensional.
  • nabla9 10y ago
    Holographic means that the universe appears 3d but is actually 2d. 'appears' means that for us it is three dimensional. 'actually' means that the amount of stuff universe can hold is limited by 2d surface area, not 3d volume. Information/matter contained in universe is in '2d container surface' while interactions between them seem to happen in 3d universe. In other words, the information/matter you can keep in volume of space is limited by it's surface area and not it's volume. If you try to add more, it becomes black hole.
    • allemagne 10y ago
      Is it misunderstanding things to say that we're like data on a computer? So from my perspective, two atoms on my body are right next to each other. However, they could be theoretically encoded on opposite ends of the universe's 2d surface?
      • VLM 10y ago
        The analogy no one wants to state in public (because its partially wrong) is holography is like Fourier transforms or x-ray crystallography. Today everyone is very chill with using FT to convert say a pile of voltage and time measurements into frequency/phase and power, and back again, and manipulate either side to see how the other side wiggles in response. This is all basic EE stuff this is how your DSP or software defined radio works (well, not exactly but close enough) Photo negative human scale holograms use monochromatic light to store all kinds of interference pattern stuff into splotches of black and white. If we were (are?) smart enough we could print out something on photo paper and shine a laser on it and a hologram would appear. Another analogy which is pretty decent is its like x-ray crystallography where about half a century ago a popular use of computers was to take a crystalline material and shine xrays thru it making a very modern art ish looking photo of holographic interference patterns (sorta) which would be analyzed by a computer to reverse the transform and turn it back into a 3-d model of the atoms in the crystal. So a lot of this is almost cryptographic hash like in that flipping a couple bits on one side almost always results in a huge change on the other side. So if instead of talking about atoms you take a film and laser hologram of two coffee cups the splotchy hologram film doesn't really have a concept anymore of two coffee cups next to each other, you can't point to a splotch and say thats the cup on the left. You definitely can't slice the film in half and project each and expect one cup on each half, probably you'll have two holograms each with two coffee cups and 3 dB or so worse signal to noise ratio. Badly mixing analogies its like running a crypto algo on 2 bytes of data and asking where exactly the two bytes are in the output. Well, um, if the crypto algo is anything better than ROT13 they're both kinda smeared everywhere across the output of the algo. Really badly mixing analogies its like taking a .scad file storing a 3d object (or stl or cad program of your choice) and encoding it into one of those legacy 2-D QR codes and then asking where in the QR code can you see your 3-d object ... The whole point of this is we kinda sorta have a 2-d holographic picture of the cosmic background radiation sorta. Its a very distinct picture. So whatever crazy simulations we try, we'd best make sure if you hologram-ify the cosmic background radiation, it best look similar to what our telescope have already seen. Kind of like stellar astrophysics isn't just making stuff up, your theories better match what spectrum analysis of star light often actually looks like, if your nifty stellar astrophysics theory predicts Sirius is a red giant or a black hole or something then your theory is messed up because we have lots of data about the real Sirius as opposed to theoretical models.
  • jbmorgado 10y ago
    No, it doesn't mean anything about being a simulation or not, but it imposes lower limits in the information it can contain.
• throwaway91111 10y ago
  Is this actually evidence or lack of proof against?
  • jcranmer 10y ago
    The abstract says: > We test a class of holographic models for the very early universe against cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology. These models are based on three dimensional perturbative super-renormalizable Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and while they predict a different power spectrum from the standard power-law used in ΛCDM, they still provide an excellent fit to data (within their regime of validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l≲30), where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative. Observations can be used to exclude some QFT models, while we also find models satisfying all phenomenological constraints: the data rules out the dual theory being Yang-Mills theory coupled to fermions only, but allows for Yang-Mills theory coupled to non-minimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice simulations of 3d QFT's can provide non-perturbative predictions for large-angle statistics of the cosmic microwave background, and potentially explain its apparent anomalies. The evidence appears to be "this is almost as good as state-of-the-art normal cosmic inflation theory." Which is to say, it's more of a lack of proof against than strong evidence for--it's not providing explanations for unexplained observances.
    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Your summary was almost exactly what I was going to write, based on the abstract. That said, though, a not-quite-as-good match after a very few years' work is kind of promising. After as long as the standard model has been worked on, the match might be as good.
    • throwaway91111 10y ago
      Hmm, this actually makes me much more excited. I finished with grappling existential issues about being a simulation a long time ago; I don't see the point anymore. But if I understand this right, this would give us reason to believe we could simulate absolutely tiny models of the universe with relatively high (still quite low) confidence it's meaningful. Is that fair?
• Severian 10y ago
  I wonder if this theory supports the idea that the universe inhabits a black hole, or at least the surface of one.
  • yaks_hairbrush 10y ago
    Actually, the big bang bears a pretty striking resemblance to a white hole. That's the time-reversed version of a black hole. Whereas with a black hole, all paths lead toward the singularity at its core, with a white hole, all paths lead away from the singularity.
    • dkonofalski 10y ago
      And there you go... there's the answer to everything. A black hole on one side and, on the other side (the side we don't know), there's a whole new universe being sprung up. Each input goes to the output of a different black/white hole combo.
      • AnonymousPlanet 10y ago
        So basically, we're in a cable?
        • selectiveshift 10y ago
          How many universes can we daisy chain together?
          • dkonofalski 10y ago
            I'm more worried about when the universe decides to start dropping ports and making everything wireless. :-P
          • oldsj 10y ago
            Needs a dongle
      • 10y ago
• ivan_ah 10y ago
  arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878 https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878
• TwoFactor 10y ago
  It's interesting that to a layman this seems like almost the exact opposite of what string theory proposes dimensionally. Holographic universe theory is stating there are effectively less dimensions, while string theory shows there could be significantly more.
  • midgetjones 10y ago
    I'm not sure you're a 'layman' if you understand string theory.
    • tzakrajs 10y ago
      But a layman might conflate two things that they do not understand.
    • lutusp 10y ago
      Knowing that string theory requires 11 dimensions doesn't mean one understands it. And even string theorists aren't sure which version of the theory represents everyday reality, and the number of candidates is quite beyond imagining. Finally, to date there aren't any reliable empirical tests to place string theory on a firm scientific foundation. In the long term string theory may contribute more to mathematics than to physics.
  • atomicfiredoll 10y ago
    This is the first time I've read anything about Holographic universe theory and I really don't understand anything about it yet. But, does this mean we were the ones living in a 2-dimensional "flatland" the whole time?
    • freeduck 10y ago
      So the earth is flat - told you so :-)
    • xyzzy4 10y ago
      I think it means the max amount of information in the observable universe is bounded by the amount of information that could fit on the 2D surface of a spherical event horizon of a black hole of the same size.
• neals 10y ago
  I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: " [...] our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries." What, exactly, do they mean with 'on its boundries'?
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • philipov 10y ago
    This is a statement of the holographic principle, which is that a projection on the surface (boundary) of a volume completely encodes the contents of that volume. You then no longer need the volume at all, you can perform all operations on the surface projection instead.
  • greydius 10y ago
    It's an awkward sentence. The 2-dimensional surface is the boundary of the 3-dimensional surface. I think what they're saying is that they believe the 3-dimensional universe is a 'reverse-projection' from the 2-dimensional surface.
  • PaulAJ 10y ago
    I'm familiar with the idea of coordinate transforms and projections, so I get the idea that you could project our 3D universe onto a 2D surface, and I kind of see how a hologram encodes 3D information, but I don't see how that is a useful idea. Or are there only certain kinds of 4D information that can be encoded in the 2D surface, so our 4D model of space and time gets reduced to a theory of only 2 dimensions? Are there conceivable arrangements of a 4D universe that can't be represented in this way?
    • marcosdumay 10y ago
      Laymen "easy" language makes everything harder to understand. The holographic principle means that if you take a sphere somewhere, the amount of entropy you can push there grows with r^2, and not with r^3 like you'd expect.
• kevrone 10y ago
  The headline is tantalizing, but this is almost impossible to grok for a layperson like me.
• mrskeltal 10y ago
  This is like the wang carpets from Greg Egan's Diaspora novel.
• lngnmn 10y ago
  How a simulation could reveal anything? A simulation has no connection to reality whatsoever. One single major (or even minor) factor missed in the model, and the whole thing is a bullshit. Imaginable factors with real weights - same kind of result. Simulations and probabilistic estimations could be applied only to fully observable environments.
  • Panoramix 10y ago
    Where did you get that this was a simulation? The were analyzing telescope data.
    • lngnmn 10y ago
      Analysis presupposes some model.
      • Panoramix 10y ago
        The entirety of physics is a bunch of models that match reality to various degrees, and which are able to predict things.
        • lngnmn 10y ago
          That does not mean that unproved (non-existent) factors should be added to a model or that any inferences could be made from a simulated model. Experiment, not a simulation is the criterion of validity in the scientific method. Simulation is not a valid experiment. Hypotheses and predictions are guesses, not facts and cannot be substituted for facts or logical premises.
• martincmartin 10y ago
  There's good background information in the Wikipedia article on the Holographic principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle The latest Scientific American has an article on why some physicists are calling for rejection of cosmic inflation theory: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-theory-faces-challenges/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-... Although it seems to be paywalled.
• blincoln 10y ago
  Possibly dumb question, but I know my niece is going to ask me about this, and I'd like to be able to give her a solid response: does this mean that most distances within our universe are illusory? If not, why not? To expand on that thought a little bit, with a hologram, the projected object is an illusion, and can be made to appear to move at arbitrary speed by e.g. rotating the projection apparatus. On a larger scale, it's possible to create the illusion of FTL movement by e.g. rapidly rotating a laser projector in space and then traveling a long distance from it, so that at a certain distance from the source, it appears that there is a projection from the source which is rotating faster than light. If this theory models the universe as a 3D (or more) projection from a 2D surface, why is it not possible to cause objects within our perceived 3D+ universe to appear to move faster than light by causing some sort of change to the 2D surface itself? I assume there is a reason this is not possible within the bounds of this theory, but I have no idea what that reason might be.
  • Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    Distances are "illusory" to some extent anyway. On a large scale, relativity makes both time and space dependent somewhat on other factors. On a small scale, quantum mechanics similarly de-absolutizes position (space) and momentum. Space and time as absolutes appear to be a construct, a consequence of us being highly complex neural networks trained at a specific scale of the Universe - the "human scale" - as beings about 1 ... 2 meters in size. Absolute time and absolute space appear to be very real on this scale. But as soon as you leave this order of magnitude, and climb either up or down on the scale of things, this turns out to be mere provinciality.
    • sandworm101 10y ago
      Up or down several dozen orders of magnitude. Time and space exist for the cells in our bodies, and for mountains, moons and most stars. Time and space only break down substantially for things smaller than molicules or large enough to twist spacetime back in itself (black holes). A mouse is no further away from the moon than a dog or elephant.
      • 10y ago
• billionsfan1 10y ago
  While not conclusive, does this not sound like support for what could be Intelligent Design - ID? 'Patterns imprinted in it carry information about the very early Universe and seed the development of structures of stars and galaxies in the late time Universe.' [From the Bulletin] If the universe is encoded on a 2d surface and has been projected on 3d, doesn't that sound like some design/intentional purpose encoded on the 2d surface?
  • JamesLeonis 10y ago
    No. This emerged from studying what happens when stuff falls into black holes. In physics, all matter can be described as having "information" or "state" that describes itself. That information can't be destroyed. However, a questions about how matter's information was preserved in a black hole led to math equations that describe how that information is "encoded" onto the black hole's event horizon. As a funny side effect, those equations also happened to describe everywhere else in the universe, leading physicists to look around and ask themselves, "Are we holograms too?" In this way, the Hologram theory states that all matter is really information on a 2D surface, and that "we" are the 3D holographic projection of that information.
  • vidarh 10y ago
    Why? It doesn't seem to bear any kind of relevance either way.
  • raziel2701 10y ago
    You can always inject god into the unknown. That's what history has shown us over and over and as we slowly uncover how things work there are fewer places to put god into. I see no difference here.
• VanillaCafe 10y ago
  Consider a mathematical spherical construct that contains more than the the r^2 amount of entropy than can be described by the Holographic Principle. What makes that not possible under the theory? What breaks down? Is there a physical analogy for it?
  • bermanoid 10y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle: 'However, there exist classical solutions to the Einstein equations that allow values of the entropy larger than those allowed by an area law, hence in principle larger than those of a black hole. These are the so-called "Wheeler's bags of gold". The existence of such solutions conflicts with the holographic interpretation, and their effects in a quantum theory of gravity including the holographic principle are not yet fully understood.'
  • trhway 10y ago
    to me it like classical electrodynamics ie. like Gauss's law connecting field on the closed surface with what is inside. The key in classical EM is that EM field is holomorphic, and the gravity in GM seems to be close to that too. So in that sense holographic principle is something like this - integral of information flux taken over closed surface equals the integral of the information [charges] taken over the enclosed volume, and thus the upper limit of r^2 is just being a simple consequence of the equality in the situation of maximum entropy (minimum information) situation of a black hole (with gravity being fully compatible with [and alternatively reformulated through] entropy description a black hole is the ultimate gravitational as well as ultimate entropy state).
• Osmium 10y ago
  Question, from someone who does not understand the Holographic universe idea: If 'true', is the holographic universe 'merely' a mathematical tool that helps us solve problems, or is it a description of an objective reality, and the universe is 'really' a 2D surface, and our 3D perception is somehow illusory? I understand this is partly a philosophy of science question, but would be interested to hear an expert opinion ...
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Until and unleas.a theory is falsified and revealed to be an incomplete model, there is no way to differentiate the "mathematical tool" from the "underlying reality" case, since any theory that works without qualification is, by definition, a model which is not detectably distinguishable from being the underlying reality.
    • Groxx 10y ago
      So is holographic universe theory expected to work without qualification (thus being indistinguishable), or is it more of a temporary patch that nobody believes is correct, but works better for one area, and worse for others? Newton's model of gravity works well enough for approximation at human scales, but is flawed enough that you don't use it for astrophysics or microscopic realms.
      • mikekchar 10y ago
        No model accurately represents reality. I think people have this idea that if I have 2 different theories that predict exactly the same thing, that one of them is right and another is wrong. This is exacerbated by a misunderstanding with Occam's razor. It is popular to believe that given those 2 theories, the simpler one is correct. This is not necessarily the case. The simpler one is simpler and therefore a better model to use (being simpler ;-) ). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? What if it's really something indistinguishable from a duck, but not actually a duck? What does that even mean? Our concept of "duck" is inextricably connected to our perception of it. A "duck" does not exist in the way we envision it, if we do not envision it. So backing up to your question again, does this theory (or any other theory) explain everything about the universe, or is it more of a temporary patch that nobody believes is correct, but works better for one area, and worse for others? The latter. All models are the latter. The truth is unknowable. As the parent says, to the extent that the model predicts our observations, it is consistent with reality. Many other models are also consistent with reality. This model may be simpler in some ways and less simple in others. If it is simpler in all ways and has predictions that are consistent with reality, we will use it in preference to other models. Having said all that, I have no idea in which areas it is simpler, in which areas it is more complex and in which areas it conflicts with our observations.
• patcon 10y ago
  I've recently been thinking on how our human definition of intelligence might relate to holographic principles, particularly in regards to information theory. We are small creatures, but our networks -- our brains and societies -- represent the most complex information-encoding geometries we've yet seen in the universe. And I see the way that our curiosity reaches upward in scale, documenting the far corners and folds of the universe; and deeper, interrogating the tiny subatomic spaces; and forward and back, building models of the future and past of this point in time. And we capture this knowledge and bring it into our tiny space, information encoded in structures along the skin of this rock floating in space. And I wonder if that's not holographic in some way: That insatiable drive to compress information from massive scales of space and time into the tiniest of spaces... But of course, this is just armchair philosophizing ;)
  • captain_crabs 10y ago
    Haha, beautifully put, but I often wonder the opposite. What if our capacity to perceive and think is so limited and narrow that most of the underlying workings of reality are completely missed by us? The what if being, we are not so special as we think. The way an ant colony will bustle full of self-import and purpose, blissfully unaware of the giant people passing by. And the people pay it no mind, because they can't interact meaningfully with the ant colony, so while one is aware of the other and far more about the world, the reverse isn't true.
    • ashark 10y ago
      Mix those thoughts with a healthy does of "human values don't necessarily have any relation to alien values, which may be just as incomprehensible to humanity as the true nature of the universe" and you've basically got the Cosmic Horror fiction genre.
      • hooph00p 10y ago
        and here I was trying to avoid an existential crisis today. There that goes.
• stevenh 10y ago
  You cannot code a particle simulator that perfectly mimics 3D space despite each particle only having two spatial location variables. We all have that new agey friend on FB who will inevitably share this nonsense. Do we really need to be dealing with it on HN? What's next, Minion memes?
  • HisGraceTheDuck 10y ago
    The holographic principle proposes a much more complex relationship between the 3 dimensional (plus 1 time dimension) universe we experience and a 2 dimensional (plus 1 time dimension) model that could provide insights into many interesting areas of physics including QFT, Cosmology, Black Holes, etc. There is a very well developed model of how this relationship could work in a simpler case. I suggest you have a look at this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence Hopefully this mathematical model will convince you that the holographic principle is, at the very least, more mature than a minion meme.
• acqq 10y ago
  The abstract of the paper about which the article reports is less dramatic: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878 https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878 "By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles." So the non-holographic model seems to be better globally even according to the paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model If the further research proves that holographic models are better, it's good too, let the best wins. But at the moment it still looks to be too early to conclude too much.
• remir 10y ago
  It's crazy to think we are the universe observing and trying to understand itself. Matter organised in a certain way is able to observe itself? How weird is that!
  • acchow 10y ago
    This and Godel's Incompleteness (equivalently the halting problem) and entropy (which gives the "arrow of time") I always find endlessly strange.
    • nerfhammer 10y ago
      what about human consciousness?
      • cLeEOGPw 10y ago
        What about it? Any collection of rocks put on a grid with certain rules can become "conscious". Neither your little awareness of yourself, nor someones feeling of "endlessly strange" things mean anything when talking about whether universe is holographic or not.
      • snowwrestler 10y ago
        Totally normal. I experience it every day!
      • acchow 10y ago
        "this" was referring to human consciousness (since I was referring to a comment about that)
  • wturner 10y ago
    This is the perspective that I hardly ever hear discussed when the issue of "human freedom" is brought up. If you assume we are a result of the big bang, then the causal relationship infers humans are not free. If on the other hand you assume humans "are" the universe, then an entirely different perspective seems to be possible albeit one that is much more confusing to reason about.
• jayajay 10y ago
  Very misleading title! This article doesn't really discuss the "evidence", you will need to dig deeper. The article is a summary of what holography is, and not much more. > They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe. This seems to be very, very old news. Like all theories, holography sounds very interesting. This article implies that a prediction made by holography has been observed. This is not the case, apparently. The math may a lot more elegant, but what new predictions are there, and have we observed them? This is what the article claimed to be about, alas it wasn't.
• sova 10y ago
  Very relevant: http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• basicplus2 10y ago
  This shows how philosophy is rather important when trying to come to an understanding. Different philosophy can result in different theory of explanation and different direction of model building.
  • KennyCason 10y ago
    agree very so much. I responded to another answer where someone's comment was questioned as being poetic or metaphorical and not scientific. :)
• rrggrr 10y ago
  IANP, but its seems as if the measurement problem will always cause us to observe, more accurately measure, a 2D projection and maximum entropy; where before the wave collapse a 3D+ universe and perhaps infinite entropy existed. In the same way that two trains traveling at different speeds are warped to the observer, it would seem to me that we would need to observe the wave in real-time to accurately observe it. Again, INAP.
• ImTalking 10y ago
  Does this mean that consciousness is a dimension? Would a (say) lifeless planet 'be' 3D if not observed or would it remain encoded in 2D? (Asked by a layman).
• llukas 10y ago
  Shitty scientific journalism. Abstract says something else but who cares.
  • spott 10y ago
    The abstract: >We test a class of holographic models for the very early Universe against cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant (ΛCDM) of cosmology. These models are based on three-dimensional perturbative superrenormalizable quantum field theory (QFT), and, while they predict a different power spectrum from the standard power law used in ΛCDM, they still provide an excellent fit to the data (within their regime of validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to the data without very low multipoles (i.e., l≲30), where the QFT becomes nonperturbative. Observations can be used to exclude some QFT models, while we also find models satisfying all phenomenological constraints: The data rule out the dual theory being a Yang-Mills theory coupled to fermions only but allow for a Yang-Mills theory coupled to nonminimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice simulations of 3D QFTs can provide nonperturbative predictions for large-angle statistics of the cosmic microwave background and potentially explain its apparent anomalies." So, basically, the holographic models seem to be pretty good, in the areas where it is perturbative (roughly l>30), it appears to fit slightly better than the current theories ("lambda CDM" models). The paper can rule out some of the holographic models because they don't fit the data, while other models fit great. Finally, the non-perturbative holographic models (roughly l<=30) might be able to be made to fit the data better if they are not calculated in a perturbative sense. This seems to be pretty close to what the article says...
    • llukas 10y ago
      What new evidence a model brings? Model can be used to plan experiment based on it and that is evidence (once you carry out the experiment that is). Model is only used to explain how stuff is supposed to work. Please read conclusion section of the paper. example: Epicycles also explain how planet movement works - but it is not evidence how it works it is explanation based on data.
• faragon 10y ago
  Does anyone know how could affect that to wormholes? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
• nargella 10y ago
  A friend of mine has been trying convince me and my peers for like 2 years that the universe is holofractal. Holofractal is different than holographic [1] but is also an interesting idea. Things like the Em Drive device and this are really making physics interesting again. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/5r3i83/hologram_holographic_what_is_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/5r3i83/hologra...
• oelmekki 10y ago
  As a non physicist, there's something I don't get in the comparaison with 3d tv. From what I gathered, the only reason 3d tv is 3d is because it exploits the fact we have two eyes, distant from one another, which can provide a depth view when seeing the same thing at two different angles, or when being tricked into thinking it's that way. What would mean a "holographic 2d space encoding 3d space" detached from an illusion made by someone observing it?
• droopybuns 10y ago
  I cant tell if all of the comments here are genuine, or the output of some high performance markov chains. Also, i have absolutely no ability to penetrate what is being described by this article. Holograms work by applying lasers to different surfaces and re-rendering the image relative to the original laser's point of view. How does the word 'holographic' apply?
  • losteric 10y ago
    Holograms are 2d images that look 3d from our perspective. Similarly, this theory is that our perceived reality of 3 spatial dimensions + time is actually fully contained on a 2d surface.
    • droopybuns 10y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to try to educate me. I think that this metaphor is flawed. Holograms project an illusion of depth, but they clearly are not 3 dimensional. The metaphor falls apart if your thought process includes the assumption that eyesight is an unreliable depth detector. There are other methods for detecting x/y/z coordinates that do not rely on eyesight- consequently, I'm having a hard time reconciling what the metaphor describes. I feel that Platz's material below is more descriptive and helps communicate the concepts in a far less confusing way.
  • platz 10y ago
    Black hole Firewalls with Sean Carroll and Jennifer Ouellette (45m+50s quick summary of the holographic principle) https://youtu.be/_8bhtEgB8Mo?t=45m50s https://youtu.be/_8bhtEgB8Mo?t=45m50s Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram (more dense/verbose) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY
  • tripzilch 10y ago
    Are you implying that markov chains can't be genuine? :)
• chadpaulson 10y ago
  The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality by the late Michael Talbot is a must read for those interested in exploring this topic.
• tempodox 10y ago
  Maybe my clock is time-dilated, but isn't 1st of April still months away?
• tvural 10y ago
  First, here is a link that is not hidden behind a paywall: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf > there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation. This is a bit misleading, especially the phrase "substantial evidence". I bet that the authors of the paper would not have used this phrasing. From the paper: > We emphasise that the application of holography to cosmology is conjectural, the theoretical validity of such dualities is still open and different authors approach the topic in different ways. Essentially, their paper shows that a holographic model cannot be ruled out simply by comparing the predictions it makes for the CMB to observation. It also gives some intuition for why a holographic model might make sense - at sufficiently early times in the Universe quantum and gravitational effects begin to coincide, and in other contexts people have modeled quantum gravity using "a quantum field theory with no gravity in one dimension less". The paper finds, however, that there is no empirical case to be made for discarding the standard model of inflation: > We see that the difference between evidence for [the standard model] and HC predictions is insignifcant, with marginal preference for HC, depending on the choice of priors.
• tripzilch 10y ago
  So now the entire universe is 2D? Wow, these flat-earthers are getting ambitious.