Is the Universe a giant hologram?

R1 · Jan 17, 2009

Thank you all so much for all the references.     <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Smersh · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Online copy of the August 2003 Scientific American article Information in the Holographic UniverseLink....Not a SciAm link because they're charging $5 for it Posted by docm</DIV>Thanks for posting that link docm. An interesting thing I thought about was, there seems to be no mention of Craig Hogan and his work with the GEO600. The theories in the Scientific American article seem to have been arrived at entirely separately.What is mean't by "Universe" in the articles though? Is it all the planets, stars and galaxies we can see through our telescopes, or is it EVERYTHING, including all the objects around us in our everyday lives? How can we physically touch something that is just a hologram? How could we have landed on the Moon if it's just a projected three-dimensional photographic image ?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

Smersh · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Online copy of the August 2003 Scientific American article Information in the Holographic UniverseLink....Not a SciAm link because they're charging $5 for it Posted by docm</DIV>Thanks for posting that link docm. An interesting thing I thought about was, there seems to be no mention of Craig Hogan and his work with the GEO600. The theories in the Scientific American article seem to have been arrived at entirely separately.What is mean't by "Universe" in the articles though? Is it all the planets, stars and galaxies we can see through our telescopes, or is it EVERYTHING, including all the objects around us in our everyday lives? How can we physically touch something that is just a hologram? How could we have landed on the Moon if it's just a projected three-dimensional photographic image ?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This theory from Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, is a possible result of a gravitational wave detector experiment known as  GEO600. Here's a couple of short extracts from an article in from today's New Scientist:For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector.  Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1 Posted by Smersh</DIV>Interesting. I read both, this paper and the link by docm. A few points I like to make.1) It's common sense that time and space most likely are quantized or discrete. Even then we are using analog math everywhere. I once read a physicist's paper where he showed if we use discrete math for time and space, many of today's infinity and singularity go away. In that respect the findings of Hogan and GE600 do not surprise me. 2) Hogan's theory as described in the article seem very pre-mature to me. Here are the reasons. He assumes planck's lengths (10^-34 m or something in that range) are on the surface of the universe, and inside the universe the length gets larger and detectable, he even gives a number for length inside. All these computations are based on the current knowledge of universe's SIZE. He also assumes the universe is a SPHERE.  How can one be so sure about its size and shape?3) I didn't know they use interference method to detect gravity waves.  What if gravity wavelengths are 1 light year long?    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This theory from Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, is a possible result of a gravitational wave detector experiment known as  GEO600. Here's a couple of short extracts from an article in from today's New Scientist:For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector.  Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1 Posted by Smersh</DIV>Interesting. I read both, this paper and the link by docm. A few points I like to make.1) It's common sense that time and space most likely are quantized or discrete. Even then we are using analog math everywhere. I once read a physicist's paper where he showed if we use discrete math for time and space, many of today's infinity and singularity go away. In that respect the findings of Hogan and GE600 do not surprise me. 2) Hogan's theory as described in the article seem very pre-mature to me. Here are the reasons. He assumes planck's lengths (10^-34 m or something in that range) are on the surface of the universe, and inside the universe the length gets larger and detectable, he even gives a number for length inside. All these computations are based on the current knowledge of universe's SIZE. He also assumes the universe is a SPHERE.  How can one be so sure about its size and shape?3) I didn't know they use interference method to detect gravity waves.  What if gravity wavelengths are 1 light year long?    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

R1 · Jan 17, 2009

I am still going over all the linked info.  I do find the question somewhat blurry.  Yes,  'the universe' and 'a hologram' could be described in more detail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 17, 2009

I am still going over all the linked info.  I do find the question somewhat blurry.  Yes,  'the universe' and 'a hologram' could be described in more detail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Jan 17, 2009

From the sciam link: "... that such a final theory must be concerned not with fields, not even with spacetime, but rather with information exchange among physical processes." You gotta admire the irony of that line.

SHU · Jan 17, 2009

From the sciam link: "... that such a final theory must be concerned not with fields, not even with spacetime, but rather with information exchange among physical processes." You gotta admire the irony of that line.

ZenGalacticore · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This theory from Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, is a possible result of a gravitational wave detector experiment known as  GEO600. Here's a couple of short extracts from an article in from today's New Scientist:For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector. Then, out of the blue, a researcher approached them with an explanation. In fact, he had even predicted the noise before he knew they were detecting it. According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.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."Later in the article, Hogan qualifies this a little:No one - including Hogan - is yet claiming that GEO600 has found evidence that we live in a holographic universe. It is far too soon to say. "There could still be a mundane source of the noise," Hogan admits. Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1From where is the hologram of the Universe being projected?  Posted by Smersh</DIV> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ZenGalacticore </div>

ZenGalacticore · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This theory from Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, is a possible result of a gravitational wave detector experiment known as  GEO600. Here's a couple of short extracts from an article in from today's New Scientist:For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector. Then, out of the blue, a researcher approached them with an explanation. In fact, he had even predicted the noise before he knew they were detecting it. According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.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."Later in the article, Hogan qualifies this a little:No one - including Hogan - is yet claiming that GEO600 has found evidence that we live in a holographic universe. It is far too soon to say. "There could still be a mundane source of the noise," Hogan admits. Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1From where is the hologram of the Universe being projected?  Posted by Smersh</DIV> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ZenGalacticore </div>

docm · Jan 18, 2009

From its outside 'surface' - edge if you will, or the 2D surface of its "bubble". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 18, 2009

From its outside 'surface' - edge if you will, or the 2D surface of its "bubble". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for posting that link docm. An interesting thing I thought about was, there seems to be no mention of Craig Hogan and his work with the GEO600. The theories in the Scientific American article seem to have been arrived at entirely separately.What is mean't by "Universe" in the articles though? Is it all the planets, stars and galaxies we can see through our telescopes, or is it EVERYTHING, including all the objects around us in our everyday lives? How can we physically touch something that is just a hologram? How could we have landed on the Moon if it's just a projected three-dimensional photographic image ?  Posted by Smersh</DIV>Don't take the word "hologram" too literally.I don't think that anyone is suggesting that our universe is a real hologram, not an image consisting only of interference patterns of light.What I think is being suggested is that perhaps the physics of the universe which takes place in (depending on which theory is underconsideration at the moment) 4 or more dimensions as we see it, could actually be determined by the information on some lower dimensional boundary.In a real hologram, say in he little image on one of your credit cards. there is some quantity of information stored in a 2-dimensinal film.  When it is illuminated by a laser the resulting interference patterns permit you to view what appears to be a 3-dimensional image and to view it from various angles, or with sophisticated equipment, construct an image in 3-space that (with the proper viewing goggles) you can walk around just as if it were a real object.  But the key is the the information necessary to do this is contained on a 2-dimensional surface.  That 2-dimensional surface completely governs the 3-dimensinal "object" that you see.You might also consider the example of harmonic functions in the theory of on complex variable.  These ar basically solutions of the heat equation.  Consider the case of a harmonic function on the unit disc.  If you know the value on the unit circle, the 1-dimensional boundary to the disc, then you can find the value of the function everywhere on the disc, just by performing and integration.  This is more or less what Green's functions are all about.  If you know the value of a function that satisfies some nice partial differential equation on a boundary, you can find the value througout the bonded region.So, this notion of a holographic universe is similar.  The idea is that there is a lower dimensinal boundary that determines the physics on a higher dimensional region.  A common hologram is just an analogy.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for posting that link docm. An interesting thing I thought about was, there seems to be no mention of Craig Hogan and his work with the GEO600. The theories in the Scientific American article seem to have been arrived at entirely separately.What is mean't by "Universe" in the articles though? Is it all the planets, stars and galaxies we can see through our telescopes, or is it EVERYTHING, including all the objects around us in our everyday lives? How can we physically touch something that is just a hologram? How could we have landed on the Moon if it's just a projected three-dimensional photographic image ?  Posted by Smersh</DIV>Don't take the word "hologram" too literally.I don't think that anyone is suggesting that our universe is a real hologram, not an image consisting only of interference patterns of light.What I think is being suggested is that perhaps the physics of the universe which takes place in (depending on which theory is underconsideration at the moment) 4 or more dimensions as we see it, could actually be determined by the information on some lower dimensional boundary.In a real hologram, say in he little image on one of your credit cards. there is some quantity of information stored in a 2-dimensinal film.  When it is illuminated by a laser the resulting interference patterns permit you to view what appears to be a 3-dimensional image and to view it from various angles, or with sophisticated equipment, construct an image in 3-space that (with the proper viewing goggles) you can walk around just as if it were a real object.  But the key is the the information necessary to do this is contained on a 2-dimensional surface.  That 2-dimensional surface completely governs the 3-dimensinal "object" that you see.You might also consider the example of harmonic functions in the theory of on complex variable.  These ar basically solutions of the heat equation.  Consider the case of a harmonic function on the unit disc.  If you know the value on the unit circle, the 1-dimensional boundary to the disc, then you can find the value of the function everywhere on the disc, just by performing and integration.  This is more or less what Green's functions are all about.  If you know the value of a function that satisfies some nice partial differential equation on a boundary, you can find the value througout the bonded region.So, this notion of a holographic universe is similar.  The idea is that there is a lower dimensinal boundary that determines the physics on a higher dimensional region.  A common hologram is just an analogy.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the sciam link: "... that such a final theory must be concerned not with fields, not even with spacetime, but rather with information exchange among physical processes." You gotta admire the irony of that line. Posted by SHU</DIV>This is one of the point I am trying to emphasize for sometime. There are situations where our language ( be it English or the language of a rain forest tribe) is not adequate to describe or express  the truth. The word 'Information' here is an example. I'm paraphrasing someone's statement "we have only information in this universe, not matter or energy". In a sense this is true  considering causality and change of states.  But the word 'information' immediately divert our minds to the generally used everyday-term information, preventing us from getting the true concept of information used by scientists. Also note that 'information can not be destroyed', because of causality, IMHO. Now back to the article. As one poster pointed out, these scientists are not saying 'the universe is a hologram'. They are saying 'information stored in the universe is similar to the way information is stored in laboratory hologram'. Now the question is what would it look like if a lab hologram is viewed from inside??? I think the view can be made visible by computer simulation, food for a computer science MS thesis. Another interesting point is now hologram theory joined the string theory, field or particle theory of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the sciam link: "... that such a final theory must be concerned not with fields, not even with spacetime, but rather with information exchange among physical processes." You gotta admire the irony of that line. Posted by SHU</DIV>This is one of the point I am trying to emphasize for sometime. There are situations where our language ( be it English or the language of a rain forest tribe) is not adequate to describe or express  the truth. The word 'Information' here is an example. I'm paraphrasing someone's statement "we have only information in this universe, not matter or energy". In a sense this is true  considering causality and change of states.  But the word 'information' immediately divert our minds to the generally used everyday-term information, preventing us from getting the true concept of information used by scientists. Also note that 'information can not be destroyed', because of causality, IMHO. Now back to the article. As one poster pointed out, these scientists are not saying 'the universe is a hologram'. They are saying 'information stored in the universe is similar to the way information is stored in laboratory hologram'. Now the question is what would it look like if a lab hologram is viewed from inside??? I think the view can be made visible by computer simulation, food for a computer science MS thesis. Another interesting point is now hologram theory joined the string theory, field or particle theory of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

docm · Jan 18, 2009

On the other hand you could be an anaolgy trying to deny its true nature <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />I'm not sure with the current level of informaton we can say which is true; the universe as projection or the universe as material but with holo-information features.  At some level, or from certain relative points of view, it may be a distinction without a difference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 18, 2009

On the other hand you could be an anaolgy trying to deny its true nature <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />I'm not sure with the current level of informaton we can say which is true; the universe as projection or the universe as material but with holo-information features.  At some level, or from certain relative points of view, it may be a distinction without a difference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....Don't take the word "hologram" too literally.....I don't think that anyone is suggesting that our universe is a real hologram, not an image consisting only of   That 2-dimensional surface completely governs the 3-dimensinal "object" that you see....  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> I thought the image on a hologram was stored 3-dimensionly (microscopically) in the emulsion.  The holographic image on your credit card is literally embossed into the plastic using a press.     I watched the UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso talk you posted.  He says something like it takes energy to record information and if you put enough energy into a defined space it will collapse into a black hole.  Therefore there is a limit to the amount of information that can fit into a defined space.  However there is just enough surface area on the event horizon to describe everything inside the black hole.  Am I getting this right?

kg · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....Don't take the word "hologram" too literally.....I don't think that anyone is suggesting that our universe is a real hologram, not an image consisting only of   That 2-dimensional surface completely governs the 3-dimensinal "object" that you see....  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> I thought the image on a hologram was stored 3-dimensionly (microscopically) in the emulsion.  The holographic image on your credit card is literally embossed into the plastic using a press.     I watched the UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso talk you posted.  He says something like it takes energy to record information and if you put enough energy into a defined space it will collapse into a black hole.  Therefore there is a limit to the amount of information that can fit into a defined space.  However there is just enough surface area on the event horizon to describe everything inside the black hole.  Am I getting this right?

docm · Jan 18, 2009

Yes, and there are theorists who believe that the universe is the inside of a black hole existing in some larger space.The problem is in proving any of the above conjectures, many of which could qualify as some of the best (or worst) SciFi ever written <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 18, 2009

Yes, and there are theorists who believe that the universe is the inside of a black hole existing in some larger space.The problem is in proving any of the above conjectures, many of which could qualify as some of the best (or worst) SciFi ever written <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is one of the point I am trying to emphasize for sometime. There are situations where our language ( be it English or the language of a rain forest tribe) is not adequate to describe or express  the truth. The word 'Information' here is an example. I'm paraphrasing someone's statement "we have only information in this universe, not matter or energy". In a sense this is true  considering causality and change of states.  But the word 'information' immediately divert our minds to the generally used everyday-term information, preventing us from getting the true concept of information used by scientists. Also note that 'information can not be destroyed', because of causality, IMHO. Now back to the article. As one poster pointed out, these scientists are not saying 'the universe is a hologram'. They are saying 'information stored in the universe is similar to the way information is stored in laboratory hologram'. Now the question is what would it look like if a lab hologram is viewed from inside??? I think the view can be made visible by computer simulation, food for a computer science MS thesis. Another interesting point is now hologram theory joined the string theory, field or particle theory of the universe. Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV> The first use of "information" that I'm aware of was the Bell's Theorem experiments.  Later, the term was used in Hawking radiation and the "teleportation" experiments.  Right now, it's more of a phenomenon and speculative.  Hence, the irony.A bit of background:  DeSitter was a contemporary of Einstein and proposed a different, generalized mathematical model of spacetime, compared to Einstein's.  DeSitter spacetime is consistent with expansion, without a cosmological constant.  Anti-DeSitter spacetime (AdS) is more similar than different but replaces the repulsive force with an attraction.  AdS is not considered an accurate representation.  Conceptually, the holographic principle is still mathematical, not physical.  Fascinating area of research in which I have revolutionary expectations, hopefully in my lifetime.

SHU · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is one of the point I am trying to emphasize for sometime. There are situations where our language ( be it English or the language of a rain forest tribe) is not adequate to describe or express  the truth. The word 'Information' here is an example. I'm paraphrasing someone's statement "we have only information in this universe, not matter or energy". In a sense this is true  considering causality and change of states.  But the word 'information' immediately divert our minds to the generally used everyday-term information, preventing us from getting the true concept of information used by scientists. Also note that 'information can not be destroyed', because of causality, IMHO. Now back to the article. As one poster pointed out, these scientists are not saying 'the universe is a hologram'. They are saying 'information stored in the universe is similar to the way information is stored in laboratory hologram'. Now the question is what would it look like if a lab hologram is viewed from inside??? I think the view can be made visible by computer simulation, food for a computer science MS thesis. Another interesting point is now hologram theory joined the string theory, field or particle theory of the universe. Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV> The first use of "information" that I'm aware of was the Bell's Theorem experiments.  Later, the term was used in Hawking radiation and the "teleportation" experiments.  Right now, it's more of a phenomenon and speculative.  Hence, the irony.A bit of background:  DeSitter was a contemporary of Einstein and proposed a different, generalized mathematical model of spacetime, compared to Einstein's.  DeSitter spacetime is consistent with expansion, without a cosmological constant.  Anti-DeSitter spacetime (AdS) is more similar than different but replaces the repulsive force with an attraction.  AdS is not considered an accurate representation.  Conceptually, the holographic principle is still mathematical, not physical.  Fascinating area of research in which I have revolutionary expectations, hopefully in my lifetime.

Is the Universe a giant hologram?

R1

Guest

Smersh

Guest

Smersh

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

SHU

Guest

SHU

Guest

ZenGalacticore

Guest

ZenGalacticore

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

kg

Guest

kg

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

SHU

Guest

SHU

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page