Physicist: Our world may be a giant hologram

The Matrix has... everyone.

A gravitational wave detection physics experiment has turned up data which may support the "holographic universe" theory.

Link to the news article

Excerpt:

If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."

The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.

The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle are true.

[ --- ]

Hogan agrees that if the holographic principle is confirmed, it rules out all approaches to quantum gravity that do not incorporate the holographic principle. Conversely, it would be a boost for those that do - including some derived from string theory and something called matrix theory. "Ultimately, we may have our first indication of how space-time emerges out of quantum theory." As serendipitous discoveries go, it's hard to get more ground-breaking than that.

From "You are a Hologram" issue 2691 of New Scientist magazine, page 24-27. The full article contains more information and ideas; see the link.

Neo wrote:

Whoa...

That's a bit of a mindjob.  It's fascinating theory though.

You call that a mindjob, in this place?

LOL

It only goes to prove what many who frequent this place have suspected.  The real world isnt real! 

THIS is the thing I've sought to understand since I watched The Matrix in 1999.

Bill Hicks wrote:

"...'Is this real, or is this just a ride?'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RQmnSJoRg

I love New Scientist.

O_O

Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Travi wrote:

Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Why is it stupid?  The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now.  I fist heard of it in the early '90's.  If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know.  And as always, Show your work.

Pyraci wrote:

THIS is the thing I've sought to understand since I watched The Matrix in 1999.

Bill Hicks wrote:

"...'Is this real, or is this just a ride?'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RQmnSJoRg

Bill Hicks.

Yes... Yes.

machete wrote:

You call that a mindjob, in this place?

LOL

It only goes to prove what many who frequent this place have suspected.  The real world isnt real! 

That was more of a comment about the science and physics behind the theory.  I know which message board I'm on.

Thanks for posting this.

Yes, almost all physicists and many mathematicians would know this theory especially in recent years.

It's actually very interesting and connects to many different theories if you give it a chance. [short list includes quantum gravity, string & M-theory, gravity in higher dimensions, cosmology]

Being a projection on a brane doesn't necessarily make you any more or less "fake," so no need for hurt feelings - you can enjoy it.

It may also help to remember that a scientific theory, take for example Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general theory of relativity, doesn't preclude a 'better' theory from coming along and replacing it.  Each successive theory usually owes a great debt to the work that came before it.  In the appropriate limit (low velocity, low energy/ mass/ gravity), Einstein's general theory corresponds to Newton's theory (in most cases).  So, you get a nice comforting reduction to let you know that even though Newton didn't write down the full story, Newtonian gravity gets you a pretty good answer in the appropriate domain.  In quantum mechanics, you tend to see correspondence to Newtonian mechanics in the low energy/mass, low velocity, large spatial dimensions limit. 

One would need a theory other than Newton's if one wanted to look in that different domain.  Sometimes if you use a purely old-school classical theory, you get the wrong answer.  You might be off by a factor of two, like in Thomas precession.

If you want to build a missile guidance system or a GPS that works, for example, you'd better consider something other than Newton's laws if you actually hope to get where you want to go.

Take comfort that the universe is a little less boring of a place than most people once thought it was.

Suddenly this makes alot more sense!

WHOA!

MxO-PhanthomZtryker wrote:

Suddenly this makes alot more sense!

WHOA!

Sorry phan, but since I live in Texas, that link wasn't quite as random as you probobly intended.

imax wrote:

MxO-PhanthomZtryker wrote:

Suddenly this makes alot more sense!

WHOA!

Sorry phan, but since I live in Texas, that link wasn't quite as random as you probobly intended.

I need to move there..... NOW!

=P JAYKAY

Villemar_MxO wrote:

Travi wrote:

Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Why is it stupid?  The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now.  I fist heard of it in the early '90's.  If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know.  And as always, Show your work.

First off, I never pay attention to physics - the only laws of physics I understand are gravity, laws of inertia, terminal velocity of a freefall, and the rate at which an object falls. I'm not refuting anything, I'm merely stating my opinion, is that a crime now?

My own reasons are simple, I believe certain things (such as the existance of our world, ourselves and so forth), do not require a physical explanation. I was raised to believe the way things came about according to the Bible. I won't go into that because it's not allowed on the forums. But when people ask me why I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, or why I don't believe in evolution, it's because I believe that life doesn't require an explanation and that things came about as stated in Genesis. I only believe that I'm not in charge of the way things run, and that it's a power higher than anyone on this Earth.

So, in essence, any data I have - you wouldn't accept, because you wouldn't believe it anyhow, would you? So...why should I have accept your data, because I wouldn't believe it anyhow, would I?

To restate, I disagree with this because my own beliefs don't require an explanation to life. Therefore, I fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity. People can believe whatever they want, it's their own opinion - like I have mine. I just find their's a bit farfetch'd, and the fact that people have to go to such great lengths to prove that our world is fake is just plain stupidity in my eyes.

Just because you don't believe explanations are necessary doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. 

The good thing about science is any part of it can be tested by anyone else at any time.

Travi wrote:

Villemar_MxO wrote:

Travi wrote:

Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Why is it stupid?  The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now.  I fist heard of it in the early '90's.  If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know.  And as always, Show your work.

First off, I never pay attention to physics - the only laws of physics I understand are gravity, laws of inertia, terminal velocity of a freefall, and the rate at which an object falls. I'm not refuting anything, I'm merely stating my opinion, is that a crime now?

My own reasons are simple, I believe certain things (such as the existance of our world, ourselves and so forth), do not require a physical explanation. I was raised to believe the way things came about according to the Bible. I won't go into that because it's not allowed on the forums. But when people ask me why I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, or why I don't believe in evolution, it's because I believe that life doesn't require an explanation and that things came about as stated in Genesis. I only believe that I'm not in charge of the way things run, and that it's a power higher than anyone on this Earth.

So, in essence, any data I have - you wouldn't accept, because you wouldn't believe it anyhow, would you? So...why should I have accept your data, because I wouldn't believe it anyhow, would I?

To restate, I disagree with this because my own beliefs don't require an explanation to life. Therefore, I fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity. People can believe whatever they want, it's their own opinion - like I have mine. I just find their's a bit farfetch'd, and the fact that people have to go to such great lengths to prove that our world is fake is just plain stupidity in my eyes.

1.  Its not saying the world is fake, its saying that the universe is beautifully elaborate and complex.  The hologram metaphor is just that - a metaphor to help physicists explain aggregate information.

2.  If your faith does not allow for reason, then you're doing it wrong.

3.  Look at it from a telelogical perspective.  If we agree that 2+2 is always 4, then its fair to ask, why is 2+2 always 4?  Or, why is math?  You might say, because God says so.  A physicist might say, "That's a good question!  Let's investigate further."  The end result isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, unless you insist that the only thing you must find at the end is literaaly a giant older white man with long grey hair and a long beard clad in white robes and seated on a golden throne on a giant cloud.  No offense, I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. 

Villemar_MxO wrote:

Travi wrote:

Villemar_MxO wrote:

Travi wrote:

Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Why is it stupid?  The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now.  I fist heard of it in the early '90's.  If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know.  And as always, Show your work.

First off, I never pay attention to physics - the only laws of physics I understand are gravity, laws of inertia, terminal velocity of a freefall, and the rate at which an object falls. I'm not refuting anything, I'm merely stating my opinion, is that a crime now?

My own reasons are simple, I believe certain things (such as the existance of our world, ourselves and so forth), do not require a physical explanation. I was raised to believe the way things came about according to the Bible. I won't go into that because it's not allowed on the forums. But when people ask me why I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, or why I don't believe in evolution, it's because I believe that life doesn't require an explanation and that things came about as stated in Genesis. I only believe that I'm not in charge of the way things run, and that it's a power higher than anyone on this Earth.

So, in essence, any data I have - you wouldn't accept, because you wouldn't believe it anyhow, would you? So...why should I have accept your data, because I wouldn't believe it anyhow, would I?

To restate, I disagree with this because my own beliefs don't require an explanation to life. Therefore, I fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity. People can believe whatever they want, it's their own opinion - like I have mine. I just find their's a bit farfetch'd, and the fact that people have to go to such great lengths to prove that our world is fake is just plain stupidity in my eyes.

1.  Its not saying the world is fake, its saying that the universe is beautifully elaborate and complex.  The hologram metaphor is just that - a metaphor to help physicists explain aggregate information.

2.  If your faith does not allow for reason, then you're doing it wrong.

3.  Look at it from a telelogical perspective.  If we agree that 2+2 is always 4, then its fair to ask, why is 2+2 always 4?  Or, why is math?  You might say, because God says so.  A physicist might say, "That's a good question!  Let's investigate further."  The end result isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, unless you insist that the only thing you must find at the end is literaaly a giant older white man with long grey hair and a long beard clad in white robes and seated on a golden throne on a giant cloud.  No offense, I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. 

I listen to reason up to an extent, but only until it becomes obvious you're rambling on.

And I'm not saying that there isn't a reason to look into things. I personally, key word, personally - just find it a waste of time. Some people like to investigate into certain things, like: 2+2=4, and I don't say it's because God says so. I just say that's so because, well, that's how I was taught in school. I don't look at it from a perspective of why it's like that, because in the end - there is no point, at least in my mind. To some people, there may be. It's all about opinions.

I don't insist on anything, because things do change - and I don't plan my life around the end. I'm not one to question the nature of things, if only because I don't time to do so. Some people do.

The only time I question anything involving something, is when I know there is an underlying truth (such as investigations into stolen property, or questioning someone about an incident), OR when I'm writing my literary works and trying to find contridictions or inconsistencies with it OR just to carry a conversation on about an interesting topic that has some more information behind it. The same may hold true for a physicist when it comes to this matter, touche.

Once again, I'll reiterate what I've said for two posts now - it's my own opinion, and the way I think. If people wish to waste their time on this, then have at it. I mean no offense either, just stating my own opinion, as I've said about five times now.
And thank you Capt. Obvious Cadsuane

I think I'll let this go now, because I have a feeling it'll just keep going on circles...

Travi wrote:

I just say that's so because, well, that's how I was taught in school.

Personally I think people should work things out for themselves as much as possible.

Cadsuane wrote:

Travi wrote:

I just say that's so because, well, that's how I was taught in school.

Personally I think people should work things out for themselves as much as possible.

People told me not to shortcircuit stuff. Let's find out!

Bah, I've always known I've been stuck in a Holodeck on some starship.. Noone is real in here apart from me.. or robots, you could all be robots..

Well sheesh Travi. Everyone has their own opinions, ideals or whatever. But the way your first post comes off is a bit harsh. It basically sounded like "This is stupid. Go away". Personally, I never bothered with any theory about how the world came about or why things are the way they are. I've never really needed that kind of mental support or whatever you want to call it. If we are just a hologram, well whoop-de-do. If there's some omnipotent being or whatever, well....congrats to him for a long life.

Side note: The pronounciation of Gee Tee Eff Oh is censored. >_>

This is about as stupid as the silly Hollow earth theory.

Firstly, Travi. I think it's unreasonable for you to request people leave you alone while in the same posts you openly state anyone who believes otherwise to your opinion is a "Moron" and anyone who wants to investigate the origins of our universe (Which many people find rather intriguing and take pleasure in doing, myself included) is "Wasting their time".

If you truly believe that "Each to their own" you should respect other peoples opinions with as much as you request they respect yours.

MINEZ wrote:

This is about as stupid as the silly Hollow earth theory.

Crab people say otherwise

The holographic paradigm is a form of Quantum Mysticism.

This was about the most balanced article I could find about it without it delving into "spirituality" and it being shoved down my throat as the new model for the universe:

http://itotd.com/articles/227/the-h...aphic-paradigm/

MINEZ wrote:

This is about as stupid as the silly Hollow earth theory.

We mock what we don't understand. 

(Oh, Snap!!!) 

Travi wrote:

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Yeah seriously man, it's so stupid. It's unbelievable what some people will buy into. I mean, a theory put forth based on observation and repeatable experiments? Everyone knows the world was created by the music of the Ainur, at least, thats what I read in the Silmarillion, and that thing is like really old, so you know it's got to be right.

All this is saying is that the horizon boundry of the universe contains the total entropy (information) of the volume of the universe.  Nothing to get your Newtonian knickers in a quantum bind about.

cesspool wrote:

Travi wrote:

I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.

Yeah seriously man, it's so stupid. It's unbelievable what some people will buy into. I mean, a theory put forth based on observation and repeatable experiments? Everyone knows the world was created by the music of the Ainur, at least, thats what I read in the Silmarillion, and that thing is like really old, so you know it's got to be right.

/win

One does not simply e=mcc into Mordor.