Is the Universe a giant hologram?

[csmyth3025]

Re: "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot (1991)

I was flipping through "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot today in a bookstore and was intrigued by the book's main thesis. It was written in 1991, however, and was curious as to whether scientific research over the last 19 years has either confirmed or contradicted Talbot's theory.

A short summary of Talbot's theory can be found here.

I don't know if there's been any scientific research conducted to confirm or refute this hypothesis. If there hasn't been any research, then perhaps the reason is that it makes no testable claims. Anyone can say, for instance, that an electron communicates with every other electron in the universe. To make such a claim into a theory, however, one must devise, or at least propose, an experiment that will quantitatively confirm the hypothesis.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Re: "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot (1991)

Never read it, but I'd imagine Chris is right; would you really expect a book explaining ESP and telepathy through quantum mechanics to offer testable predictions? And if there are no testable, quantitative (read: math) predictions, then it just ain't science.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Re: "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot (1991)

I was flipping through "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot today in a bookstore and was intrigued by the book's main thesis. It was written in 1991, however, and was curious as to whether scientific research over the last 19 years has either confirmed or contradicted Talbot's theory.

A short summary of Talbot's theory can be found here.

Yes, I read the book and I also started a thread on the book a couple of years ago right here in space.com.
Here is my opinion. The book started out great, providing completely scientific explanation about how our brain works like a photographic hologram. Then he started Psychobabble totally ruining the scientific merit of the book.

But as always I don't throw away the 'the whole apple if part of it is rotten'. That is why I still wonder about the part where they found similarity between memory in human brain and hologram. Because there is also another notion that the universe may be a 'simulation'. This simulation argument to me seem stronger, because it is very easy to realise the universe is running on something similar to a giant computer program. Laws of nature can be compared with logics and flow of a computer program.

Either way, these ideas have a long way to go.

 

[MeteorWayne]

threads merged-MW

 

[SteveCNC]

I guess if it is that would answer the age old question , if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound . The easy answer is the tree doesn't exist so there is no sound .

Personally I believe our brain works in 3d but do not even believe for a second the universe is a hologram .

 

[Mordred]

I like my answer to that question better.


as sound is the perception of vibration if no one is around to hear it its not a sound but a vibration.

 

[OleNewt]

as sound is the perception of vibration if no one is around to hear it its not a sound but a vibration.

Dog whistles are proof that sound exists regardless of whether we can hear it or not.

 

[csmyth3025]

People can't see ultraviolet light, yet it tans the body. Likewise, people can't see infrared light, yet it warms the body. With the proper instruments we can "see" these things indirectly. There seems to be a lot of things in the universe that we can't observe directly (some, not at all) - but we infer they exist because of their effects on things we can observe.

Chris

 

[SteveCNC]

It brings to mind the old movie The Langoliers .