Universe Could be Hologram

[RongzomFan]

Top Story on HuffingtonPost:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

 

Sourced from the prestigious Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

Edited December 12, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

"A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection."

[RongzomFan]

I win.

[Brian]

Old news. Interesting potential ramifications, of course, but not the one you are hoping for.

[RongzomFan]

Its not old.

Its literally the top story on the main page of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ as of right now.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Marblehead]

I win.

Hehehe. The Daytona 500?

 

Yes, that has been talked about for a while. I listen to them. I don't buy it. I wagered nothing, I won nothing, but then, I lost nothing.

[Brian]

Physicists started discussing implications in 1997, when the theory was proposed.

 

HuffPo is rarely my go-to site for theoretical physics but the article was pretty good!

Edited December 11, 2013 by Brian

[RongzomFan]

Physicists started discussing implications in 1997, when the theory was proposed.

 

yes but supporting evidence just came now.

[RongzomFan]

Physicists started discussing implications in 1997, when the theory was proposed.

 

HuffPo is rarely my go-to site for theoretical physics but the article was pretty good!

I think the article is actually from Nature. I see the Nature logo.

 

Nature is considered the top scientific journal.

[RongzomFan]

All you gotta know is the Eight Examples of Illusion.

Emaho!

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[silent thunder]

Human perception is a series of transducers facilitating the transformation of various wavelengths of energy into what we call our 'senses'.

 

As above so below seems to apply in the case of the holographic universe.

 

This theory grabbed me by the short hairs the first time I heard it and has never let go.

I find in fascinating... then I let it go like a straw dog and grab a beer and watch the sunset.

[Brian]

Sorry, RongzomFan -- I think I sounded dismissive and that wasn't entirely my intention. Let me start again, please.

 

This is a fascinating proposition -- one which caught my attention in 1997 and which I discussed with several fellow scientists at the time (mainly a physicist, a chemist and a biostatistician -- with whom I worked closely in those days). The implications are quite curious and the validation of QM by research along these lines is very rewarding.

 

The "news" in that HuffPo article is announcing the latest in a series of published articles on theoretical and analytical work done to explore this proposal (I am calling it a proposal rather than a theory because I am not aware of any significant predictions which have been made -- it is more of an alternative model at this point, as I recall).

 

The recent work suggests that, in a hypothetical ten-dimensional "string universe," there can exist singularities which can be shown to be quantitatively equivalent to similar concepts in our own, and extending to a fairly broad set of properties and phenomena. Additionally, another model involving a "one-dimensional universe" demonstrates that quantum mechanics may be expressible as an entangled set of harmonic oscillators -- the idea that it is all about vibrations of "something" is familiar in physics as well as in the cultivation practiced by many of us here, I think.

 

The REAL significance of this work is NOT to "prove" that everything is an illusion -- physics has understood that our models are grossly incomplete simplifications for quite some time and if pinned down about "matter," the physicist will start speaking of random fluctuations of probabilistic waveforms of distributions of energy densities and such -- instead, the REAL significance at this point in time is two-fold:

 

It suggests a possible path towards a unified theory (which Einstein chased the last half of his life) AND it offers a powerful mathematical tool for manipulating equations, similar in nature to the equivalency between the sinusoidal function and the exponential function afforded by the introduction of so-called imaginary numbers.

 

It does NOT prove or even attempt to prove that the universe is a hologram, nor does it speak in any fashion to the existence or non-existence of a creator. Actually, by providing additional support for quantum theories, it drives yet another nail in the coffin of the deterministic concept of cause and effect. Quantum theory not only blows holes in that concept but it shakes the very foundation of time & space and the concept of simultaneity, opening the door for things like the past being influenced by the future. This further undermines the idea of "debunking a creator" (demonstrated to be an exercise in futility by millennia of experience AND by mathematical proof) and further supports the notion of "I don't know."

 

EDIT: Swapped the word "potentials" with "densities" because it bothered me.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Brian

[4bsolute]

could = is.

 

Regular science has always to catch up. This is the proof, the very delayed proof beginner awakeners are wanting. Proof is the past, so to speak.

 

My mind then always goes like "see? I told you, I knew it all along." and someone is happy.

Edited December 12, 2013 by 4bsolute

[4bsolute]

Human perception is a series of transducers facilitating the transformation of various wavelengths of energy into what we call our 'senses'.

 

As above so below seems to apply in the case of the holographic universe.

 

This theory grabbed me by the short hairs the first time I heard it and has never let go.

I find in fascinating... then I let it go like a straw dog and grab a beer and watch the sunset.

 

I would not hold on to this. Such things are here and then they are gone again. The universe is expanding and changing constantly. It's basicly obsolete to 'press pause' in that sense and try to get a picture of the Universe.

 

This is 3D, yes the mind has concepts but that applies only to 3D. The universe is 'ihavenoideahowmuch'D - so why even try, from this perspective? It all escapes our minds anyway... this can not be put into words

[adept]

Top Story on HuffingtonPost:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

 

Sourced from the prestigious Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

 

Haha what a load of rubbish ! Have these scientists nothing better to do than make up ridiculous theories.

How could the universe and everything contained within it create itself ? How preposterous !

[Brian]

could = is.

 

Regular science has always to catch up. This is the proof, the very delayed proof beginner awakeners are wanting. Proof is the past, so to speak.

 

My mind then always goes like "see? I told you, I knew it all along." and someone is happy.

Naah...

 

Could = could.

 

The course of human exploration is littered with "coulds" which became "ises" only to later become "almosts" and then later still either "convenient untruths" or "can you believe those old fools actually believed thats?" Sometimes those same concepts return in a slightly different form and sometimes they are relegated to the dust bin of history. While reality is not time-constrained in this fashion, our mundane intellectualism generally is -- so this largely linear progression of an evolution of knowledge moves this way, complete with eddies and vortices and stagnant pools in addition to the main currents.

 

Kinda fun, isn't it?

 

[Brian]

 

I would not hold on to this. Such things are here and then they are gone again. The universe is expanding and changing constantly. It's basicly obsolete to 'press pause' in that sense and try to get a picture of the Universe.

 

This is 3D, yes the mind has concepts but that applies only to 3D. The universe is 'ihavenoideahowmuch'D - so why even try, from this perspective? It all escapes our minds anyway... this can not be put into words

I like this post!

[i am]

"I win"? Always off is always off, as usual...

[RongzomFan]

Brian,

 

 

Is there any theoretical physics model with a Creator?

[RongzomFan]

"I win"? Always off is always off, as usual...

Are you Tibetan_Ice?

[4bsolute]

Naah...

 

Could = could.

 

The course of human exploration is littered with "coulds" which became "ises" only to later become "almosts" and then later still either "convenient untruths" or "can you believe those old fools actually believed thats?" Sometimes those same concepts return in a slightly different form and sometimes they are relegated to the dust bin of history. While reality is not time-constrained in this fashion, our mundane intellectualism generally is -- so this largely linear progression of an evolution of knowledge moves this way, complete with eddies and vortices and stagnant pools in addition to the main currents.

 

Kinda fun, isn't it?

 

 

Is littered with coulds because of the great seperation of wanting to understand, which implies a non-understanding which is created, which is against the nature of understanding. Understanding is just it.

 

I wonder how more complex our human brain gets when we remove all our our patterns that relate to thinking. Even contemplation and pondering. The results will be that all antennas are then back fully functioning again and the sky opens and you just see. You see everything and you understand again. From one moment to the other.

 

Everone knows this either from deeper meditations or re-creational drugs done right: You just know that it is how it is. There are no questions, there are just one phrase that repeats itself endlessly full of joy in yourself: "I know.. I knew it all the time." And then tears, lots of tears of recognition...

 

Prodigal son.

[Brian]

Brian,

 

 

Is there any theoretical physics model with a Creator?

Of course! Theoretical physicists are people, too (although some get really pissed off at the suggestion), and they bring their baggage along with them. As a result, belief systems get imprinted on their work just as happens with anyone else. Conscientious scientists strive to divorce beliefs from their rigorous endeavors, however, and this is why you rarely see an overt reference to either theistic or antitheistic themes -- both are recognized as assumptions. Additionally, physics is generally more concerned with the "how" than the "why" and this generally puts theology outside the scope of physics. Add to that the perception that speculating about what happened before time began is philosophic rather than scientific, and Gödel's work which suggests such scientific inquiry is pointless, and it becomes clear why most physicists don't spend much time working on this non-problem.

 

That said, though, the big bang theory is the classic example. It was seen by its theist originator as a resounding validation of creation principles, was quickly turned around by antitheist physicists as a resounding refutation of creations principles, and is now a double-edged sword which cuts as cleanly in either direction. Most physicists, however, see it as supporting neither belief system (make no mistake here -- both theism and antitheism are "belief systems" regardless of how stridently proponents of either assert otherwise).

 

Another interesting example comes from Albert Einstein. In a very substantial way, he is one of the fathers of quantum theory -- he was the one who applied the term to electromagnetic radiation -- but he was never comfortable with quantum mechanics his entire life because he thought it had an antitheistic ring to it. It is important to note, however, that his famous "God does not play with dice with the universe" statement was met NOT with an antitheistic counter-statement but with Niels Bohr's equally famous reply of, "Stop telling God what to do."

(http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae63.htm)

 

Outside of formal theories, you see, physicists are more comfortable with being wondering beings. It is currently considered in vogue to be antitheistic so people like Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchins get lots of attention from the media. I found these works to be very thought-provoking back when I cared to spend much time thinking about such things. However I also found thought-provoking the counter-positions espoused by physicists like Bernard Haisch and John Polkinghorne. Diarmuid O'Murchu is interesting, too.

 

I don't know.

 

Not intellectually, that is.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Brian

[Brian]

 

Is littered with coulds because of the great seperation of wanting to understand, which implies a non-understanding which is created, which is against the nature of understanding. Understanding is just it.

 

I wonder how more complex our human brain gets when we remove all our our patterns that relate to thinking. Even contemplation and pondering. The results will be that all antennas are then back fully functioning again and the sky opens and you just see. You see everything and you understand again. From one moment to the other.

 

Everone knows this either from deeper meditations or re-creational drugs done right: You just know that it is how it is. There are no questions, there are just one phrase that repeats itself endlessly full of joy in yourself: "I know.. I knew it all the time." And then tears, lots of tears of recognition...

 

Prodigal son.

I fully agree! That's why I spend most of my time not-thinking these days. It is a hard habit to break, though -- especially when every street corner seems to have some thought-pusher standing on it...

 

 

LOL

 

[yabyum24]

I think the key thing here, is that from a spiritual POV, it makes no difference how you 'assume' the universe to be configured. Some early Buddhists began pottering around with ideas like this which lead to the following conclusion; basically that all matter is comprised of 'partless particles' things so small that we can't talk about them in terms of having a front, back, sides or any other 3D characteristics.

 

Emptiness, then became (for them) the realisation of this 'fact'. That things do not exist in the 'solid' way we perceive.

 

Such people were termed Hinayanists (lesser vehicle). Buddhist emptiness has never been about clever and contrived semantics or overriding sensory data with intellectual constructs.

 

Others later said that the universe was mind-made, and so it goes on.

 

Illusion, reality, empty, eternal, impermanent etc. etc. - all views and ideas.

 

Aversion and desire are the visceral products of a self-grasping mind, now there's something to work with.

[RongzomFan]

The current state of the art theory, M-theory, does not have a Creator.

Edited December 12, 2013 by RongzomFan