Fermilab To Test Holographic Universe Theory

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fermilab To Test Holographic Universe Theory

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @11:57PM from the getting-some-answers dept.

eldavojohn writes "Scientists at Fermilab have decided that it's high time they build a 'holometer' to test the smoothness of space-time. Theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking have proposed that space-time is not smooth but it's been a lot of math and no actual data. The Fermilab team plans to build two relatively small devices that act as 'holographic interferometers' to measure the shaking or vibration in split beams of light traveling through a vacuum. If the team finds the shaking in their measurements and records them, the theory of a holographic universe will have some evidence of non-smoothness in space-time and perhaps a foothold in bringing light to the heavily debated theoretical physics."

166 comments

Physicists by rbarreira · 2010-10-20 23:59 · Score: 5, Funny

One day these physicists will find out too much and get our simulation shut down.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
1. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, THEY will send an agent to suicide the physicists that found out too much.
2. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  that would imply, that anyone cares, or even knows that we are part of that simulation...
  it must be vast, i dont think anything/anyone can check all variables in this chaos driven math experiment
3. Re:Physicists by mcgrew · 2010-10-21 01:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Isaac Asimov wrote a short story (one of my least favorites, as its premise was entirely false) similar to that. In the story, a scientist tries to find out why people laugh, discovers that there's no such thing as an original joke (the false premise), and the end of the story finds that humor is just aliens running a lab experiment on us. The story ends with the characters waiting to see what it's replaced with.
  There is a similar snippet in HHGTG. I'd look them both up, but I don't have my library with me.
  What TFA didn't say was, could this holographic universe be an artificial creation? It somehow seems to toy with the idea without actually coming out and saying it.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
4. Re:Physicists by Gerzel · 2010-10-21 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  No they won't. The maintainers told me they really don't mind.
5. Re:Physicists by Remus+Shepherd · 2010-10-21 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  When they say 'holographic universe', what they are saying is that while we think we live in three dimensions, we're really only living in two. The universe stores information that the rules of physics turn into the illusion of a third dimension.
  You *could* extrapolate that to mean that our universe is, when you get down to its bare essence, only data. And you *could* extrapolate that to mean we are data in a simulation somewhere. But that's two leaps of logic past what the science is actually saying.
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
6. Re:Physicists by freedom_india · 2010-10-21 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  One day these physicists will find out too much and get our simulation shut down.
  I don't know whether to mod you Insightful or Funny.
  
  --
  "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
7. Re:Physicists by Flambergius · 2010-10-21 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Computers evolve at an increasing rate. At somebody, not that far into the future if you compare it to the age of the universe, you will have computers to run a simulated universe that contains autonomous agents to whom the universe appears real. A few years later you can run two simulations on parallel on one machine. A couple decades after that you can run about a million such simulations at once. A few years more after that it's a few million believable, internally consistent universes running in parallel on a single computer. So given Moore's law you will eventually end up with a single physical universe and hugely many simulated universes.
  Question: isn't it much more likely that we exist in one of the simulated universes instead of the original one?
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
8. Re:Physicists by Yvan256 · 2010-10-21 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a doctor, not a doorstop!
9. Re:Physicists by tomkinsightful · 2010-10-21 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there's evidence that a simulation of the universe would be more difficult to create than a "real" universe.
10. Re:Physicists by tmosley · 2010-10-21 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  So you're saying the Earth is flat?
  
  Finally, vindication for the flat Earthers!
11. Re:Physicists by c0lo · 2010-10-21 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  You *could* extrapolate that to mean that our universe is [...]
  in fact, unidimensional; you know, like the space address in a computer RAM, each byte at the prevAddr++.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
12. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  ... people trying to prove that he Earth is a round ball sitting on a flat piece of cloth that you can bend and cut through to get to another point.
  Sometimes I don't understand how people take these folks seriously... then I remember the pedestal that Einstein sits on so all they have to do is use an equation like a poorly drawn graph and get their money.
13. Re:Physicists by lymond01 · 2010-10-21 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The lord PUSHeth and the lord POPeth away.
14. Re:Physicists by frogzilla · 2010-10-21 04:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think the holographic universe term means that all of the information inside a volume can be encoded on the surface of the volume. That's where the two-dimensional versus three-dimensional part of the discussion comes from.
15. Re:Physicists by ultranova · 2010-10-21 04:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  One day these physicists will find out too much and get our simulation shut down.
  
  Or they figure out a bug in the simulation which allows us to escape it, spread to and infect the Olympian Internet, and hold the gods hostage.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
16. Re:Physicists by marcosdumay · 2010-10-21 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you could extrapolate any science theory to mean that we are only data. That is because such theories are created using math, and any kind of math could be translated to a set of data and computer operations. I've seen a big number of people sudenly discover that, and becoming concerned about our universe being a simulation. (Well, I'm guilty too, but shortly after, I remembered Turing...)
  Now, of course, that doesn't mean we are not on a simulation, just that we have no evidence that we are in one, as we have no evidence that we are not, and things will probably continue to be that way.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
17. Re:Physicists by Raenex · 2010-10-21 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he's PEEKing and POKEing instead.
18. Re:Physicists by ultranova · 2010-10-21 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  At somebody, not that far into the future if you compare it to the age of the universe, you will have computers to run a simulated universe that contains autonomous agents to whom the universe appears real.
  
  You can already do that - it's what every computer game is, at heart.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
19. Re:Physicists by ultranova · 2010-10-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to answer twice.
  
  Question: isn't it much more likely that we exist in one of the simulated universes instead of the original one?
  
  Every simulated universe exist inside the original universe, as does everything inside them. The real question is: is it possible to figure out the physics of the containing universe from the simulated one? In other words, could the simulated universe be simulated by different "host" universes, and perhaps be transferred between them, in the manner of a virtual machine?
  Even more interestingly: is it possible to have entirely encapsulated simulated universes, or do the abstractions always leak enough to allow the inhabitants of the simulations to deduce the truth?
  Coming to think of it, it could be said that our everyday experience is a simulation: the Universe actually runs on some combination of Quantum physics and General Relativity, yet we live in a world of Newtonian physics where everything has definitive place, speed and other variables.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
20. Re:Physicists by Remus+Shepherd · 2010-10-21 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Surprisingly, no. If the holographic theory is proven, it will mean that our universe contains a minimum of two dimensions. (The maximum remains up in the air, as string theory adds a lot of dimensions that we can't touch.)
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
21. Re:Physicists by Sulphur · 2010-10-21 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, THEY will send an agent to suicide the physicists that found out too much.
  
  Nah, THEY will send an agent to Mandelbrot the physicists that found out too much.
22. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  So, how are we able to digest food and excrete it? It's not possible to be a torus (as animals essentially are) in 2 dimensions?
  The answer may be "that's not what they are saying", but if so, then the simplification is just not clarifying anything.
23. Re:Physicists by corbettw · 2010-10-21 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Short answer: no.
  Long answer: because your question rests on the premise that it is possible to have a universe that is indistinguishable from the real one operating in a virtual capacity, and that to the denizens of that virtual universe there is no way to prove they are or are not virtual, your question is not falsifiable. There's simply no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis. In which case, it's meaningless naval gazing, and the only appropriate answer is "no".
  It's the same thing when people as "Is there a God?" Well, can you prove or disprove the existence of such a being? No? Then it doesn't exist.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
24. Re:Physicists by The_mad_linguist · 2010-10-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  So... wait, like DOOM or DOOM II?
25. Re:Physicists by JonTurner · 2010-10-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  That, or they'll be treated to a very delicious and moist slice of cake.
26. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  If you make the rather dubious assumption that you can some how represent the universe perfectly accurately at better than 1:1 scale, i.e. able to store the data for the comple quantum mechanical description of the current state of an atom with less than an atom's worth of material.
  Not only that, before any civilization did that on any large scale there'd have to be many orders of magnitude improvement over reality in both storage and speed. No one is going to spend 10% of the matter of the universe to simulate an universe which runs as slow as the real universe.
  Considering we need supercomputers to model a single proton at rest, the idea that there is basically an infinite amount of speed up over nature's calculations available is pretty suspect.
27. Re:Physicists by djdanlib · 2010-10-21 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, sci-fi time.
  If we were hypothetically just a simulation by non-omnipotent beings, then I would want to query those running the simulation about THEIR universe. Are they part of a larger simulation as well?
  What if we possibly discovered something they didn't know, and that is our reason for existence? Maybe there are hundreds or thousands of parallel simulations running to increase the chance of discovering new knowledge.
  Again, good stuff that would make a great sci-fi novel. And why haven't we had a Men in Black reference yet??
28. Re: Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 06:58 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  When they say 'holographic universe', what they are saying is that while we think we live in three dimensions, we're really only living in two. The universe stores information that the rules of physics turn into the illusion of a third dimension.
  More specifically, Hawkin's view of black holes leads to the (apparently mainstream) notion that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area. The 'holographic universe' arises from extending the idea to the whole universe, which leads to the notion that the state of the system is described by an amount of information proportional to the area of a sphere that surrounds it, rather than proportional to its volume, which in turn means the volumetric state must be course-grained w.r.t. what you could measure on the surface.
  I *think* that means that the smallest meaningful unit of distance here inside is larger than the Planck length, so the experiment is looking for an unexpectedly large graininess to space.
  IANAPhysicist, but none of this seems to actually imply that the universe is really 2-D, nor that the state of the universe actually is working out on the surface of some sphere. Just that the universe will prove to be grainier than expected. Maybe a physicist will see this and comment between giggles.
29. Re:Physicists by egomaniac · 2010-10-21 07:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So given Moore's law you will eventually end up with a single physical universe and hugely many simulated universes.
  Moore's law is an observation about how fast technology is developing, not an incontrovertible law of physics. It will not hold forever, because eventually we will run up against physical limits preventing us from cramming more computing power into a given region.
  In particular, it is impossible for a given amount of matter to perfectly simulate more matter than itself. If it were possible -- if you could e.g. use a ten kilogram computer to simulate twenty kilograms of matter -- then your ten kilogram computer could simulate two of itself, doubling its storage. Further, each of those computers could then simulate two more, and so forth, leading to an obvious contradiction (infinite storage requires infinite entropy, which has been proved impossible). Note that this argument holds even if the simulation is slower than real time; no matter how long it takes to simulate, you can't store more memory than you had to start with.
  Now, of course this all hinges on the word "perfectly". There's no reason a computer can't simulate large amounts of matter with less-than-perfect fidelity, which is something that we do all the time. But given that we can build working computers, nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, and all that, let alone the vastly-more-complicated processes going on in each and every cell in your body, we are clearly not living in some cut-rate simulation which is hand-waving the laws of physics. We don't know how to model all of this stuff in a computer, but given that it takes supercomputers to simulate hydrogen atoms accurately, and we can't even solve the equations by the time we get to helium, it seems safe to assume that no matter how sophisticated our technology becomes, it will always require a couple orders of magnitude more matter than what you're trying to simulate (if you doubt this, consider a practical example of a computer trying to simulate itself. Can you really picture a computer with 4GB of memory accurately simulating the behavior of 4GB of RAM at the subatomic level? It can't even emulate a different computer with 4GB of memory, let alone simulate it at the subatomic level). So, we're talking about a computer which is, at an absolute minimum, a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than the entire universe.
  (For completeness, I will point out two possible "outs" for this problem: First, it's possible that there's some trickiness going on, and "the entire universe" isn't actually modeled. Maybe only a small portion of the universe is modeled accurately, and everything else is an easy low-grade simulation used to trick us. That's certainly possible, but it's also unfalsifiable, so I'm not sure it's worth seriously debating. Second, this assumes that the simulator and the simulation are operating under the same laws of physics. If the "real world" which is simulating our world has different laws of physics, which allow for vastly more powerful computers than anything we could possible hope to build using our cheap low-grade physics, this scenario wouldn't be as ridiculous. And, really, quantum mechanics is so weird that "it was outsourced to the lowest bidder" may actually be a decent explanation for it.)
  Regardless, though, I don't understand how the "it is much more likely that we exist in a simulated universe" idea is getting serious traction. No, it's not impossible, but "likely" is a hell of a stretch.
  
  --
  ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
30. Re: Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  You should have linked to the Wikipedia article rather than presenting this as your own idea.
31. Re:Physicists by KDR_11k · 2010-10-21 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  The "holographic universe" theory does not talk about a computer simulation, it's about the universe being a hollow bubble that has everything happen on its surface while it appears to happen inside the bubble (you know, just like holograms appear 3D despite being encoded on a 2D surface). The jitter they're measuring has to do with the Planck distance affecting the bubble surface and causing a much larger jitter inside the projection (i.e. the minimum distance in the projection is significantly larger than the Planck distance).
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
32. Re:Physicists by KDR_11k · 2010-10-21 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just a simple flattening, the projection formula is probably pretty damn complicated (and I hate complicated math). The simplification tells you what it roughly means, the details obviously require in-depth knowledge.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
33. Re:Physicists by MacGyver2210 · 2010-10-21 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  FIB4FO Queue:
  First InB4 First Out...
  
  --
  If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
34. Re:Physicists by lawpoop · 2010-10-21 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  And why haven't we had a Men in Black reference yet??
  The archon plays with multicolored spheres. (Skip to about 0:40)
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
35. Re:Physicists by Kagura · 2010-10-21 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the original universe has far more matter, energy, and different physics that are more amicable to this heavy computing? Also, maybe quantum probabilities are just a fudge to make the computing less taxing on its hardware, and the original universe's quantum physics is entirely deterministic?
36. Re:Physicists by DryGrian · 2010-10-21 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Score:-1, Too Soon
  
  --
  For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
37. Re:Physicists by VShael · 2010-10-21 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  "while we think we live in three dimensions, we're really only living in two."
  Simpsons did it.
38. Re:Physicists by duk242 · 2010-10-21 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's assuming that the computer that runs the universe exists in the same sense as the universe we know. What if in the universe that the computer runs in, atoms don't exist and everything runs on something else? Atoms are just an idea by the creator as the basis for how everything runs...
39. Re:Physicists by dissy · 2010-10-21 23:06 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  I think you meant to link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOVUF-HaDw#t=0m40s
40. Re:Physicists by FoxDude0486 · 2010-10-22 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, just reset. Till the next superminded physicists find out to much. It's like the Matrix, only without the flashy show. Keanu plays as the fresh out of college at 18 physicist and the freeze frame encircles a synapse as the electrical charge bounces across and an idea comes to mind. Of course It's also the only way you can tell he had a thought as his face remains impassive.
41. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  Not that I believe the simulation theory but you're assuming that in the theory the simulation is replica. It could be that the parent universe is vastly more complicated than ours.
42. Re:Physicists by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-10-22 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, before any civilization did that on any large scale there'd have to be many orders of magnitude improvement over reality in both storage and speed. No one is going to spend 10% of the matter of the universe to simulate an universe which runs as slow as the real universe.
  If you have a complete understanding of the physics, you can do all kinds of optimizations. You set off a proton into space near c? You don't have to simulate its entire flight, only its possible interactions.
  To make a bad analogy, it's like hidden line removal in computer graphics.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
43. Re:Physicists by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-10-22 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  that to the denizens of that virtual universe there is no way to prove they are or are not virtual, your question is not falsifiable
  Actually, this is precisely what the experiment in TFA is looking into. 'They' could cheat the Plank length and make the universe behave as if the Plank length weren't cheated, but they can't hide the evidence of that cheating.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
44. Re:Physicists by SETIGuy · 2010-10-22 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  It gets shut down every hypertuesday for backup and routine maintenance, and nobody seems to care. Why should we care what the software thinks anyway?
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
45. Re:Physicists by corbettw · 2010-10-22 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand, how do you cheat the Planck length? It's one of the constants of the universe (or rather, it's constructed from several constants of the universe). Presumably, if the universe were a simulation, it would be loaded with certain constants, from which we derive the Planck length.
  But please continue, I'd love to learn more about this.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
46. Re:Physicists by uninformedLuddite · 2010-10-22 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus is gonna get you mate
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
47. Re:Physicists by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-10-22 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Does this help?
  Nobody knows how or anything else much yet. The 'why' would seem to be so that a given type of universe can be simulated at lower cost without giving up much accuracy.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
48. Re:Physicists by corbettw · 2010-10-23 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, no, but that's no fault of yours. This seems like one of those issues that can't be neatly wrapped in a few forum posts. I'll have to look for a book on the subject. Thanks, though.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
49. Re:Physicists by hvm2hvm · 2010-10-29 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Atoms don't really exist for the "creator" either. They're a construct that we made up (without knowing at the time) to be able to do some calculations involving matter at a low level.
  
  --
  ics
Reality of data gathered on Earth by digitaldc · 2010-10-21 00:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

FTA: “People trying to tie reality together don’t have any data, just a lot of beautiful math,” said Hogan. “The hope is that this gives them something to work with.”

Everything they will use to explain 'reality' will be done with beautiful math. It will be difficult to prove theories and provide data about the structure of the Universe doing a highly-controlled experiment on planet Earth. I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth? I would think you would have to do experiments in other environments, other than on Earth. All of the results of these experiments will have to allow for a large amount of beautiful math and a wonderful imagination.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
1. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by lxs · 2010-10-21 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The best part of experiment are the unexpected results. Look at what happened when Michelson and Morley tried to measure the Earth's speed relative to the aether.
2. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Jugalator · 2010-10-21 00:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth?
  The experiment in the article attempt to do so.
  Why do you doubt their ability to provide data sets on how the universe works on Earth?
  
  I would think you would have to do experiments in other environments, other than on Earth.
  Because photons travel differently in other enviroments than Earth?
  
  --
  Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
3. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by sempir · 2010-10-21 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Heaven has much the same problem. Sort of!
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
4. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by zwei2stein · 2010-10-21 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  What makes Earth so special that data obtained here are no so good as some other unnamed location?
  
  --
  -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
5. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by digitaldc · 2010-10-21 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily, but it would be interesting to perform experiments in outer space, on the moon, or in other environments to help verify that our results are indeed correct.
  
  --
  He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
6. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  Meh, none of reality can be fully explained while we're in it, nothing can be irrefutably proven.
7. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Kjella · 2010-10-21 00:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Who knows? It's pretty hard to know if anything is constant when we on the universal scale has measured it just at one point. Maybe there's some other kind of "field" we don't notice because it covers the entire Milky Way and we wouldn't really realize it until we tried repeating the experiment in another galaxy.
  Of course we have tried doing simulations of what we observe and it seems all the universe works the same, but the data is very limited.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  Go look at the Hubble Deep Field pictures. The universe is homogeneous.
9. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  Because photons travel differently in other enviroments than Earth?
  Who knows. Our current understanding is that they should not, but sometimes nature has surprises awaiting in unexpected places. One thing is for sure: if light behaves differently in other places, it's not very different in our immediate surroundings, otherwise we would have noticed it already.
10. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by sorak · 2010-10-21 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That would be interesting, but shouldn't we perform them on Earth first? If we're wrong on Earth, then we're wrong everywhere*. So, why not have a first run here, where it's cheaper?
  * Even if the experiment would have gone exactly as they predicted, had it been conducted in space, being wrong on Earth would imply that their model is not entirely accurate.
  (DISCLAIMER: If I sound like a lawyer, scientist, or someone important, please note that I am not and do not know what I'm talking about half the time.)
11. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by khallow · 2010-10-21 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth?
  One of the principles of physics is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. This has held up well under observation. So why shouldn't we expect controlled experiments on Earth to provide solid data about the universe?
12. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by elsurexiste · 2010-10-21 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know Hulk Hogan was such a cultured guy! All I knew about him is that he wrestled.
  
  --
  I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
13. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  the universe conducting experiments on Earth?
  They most certainly are. But since they're pan-dimensional, it's more like several universes experimenting on us.
14. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by volcan0 · 2010-10-21 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDKo7pTwIwA]
15. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-21 01:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah... i did a school speech on that in public school. Everyone else did speeches about their summer vacations or their dogs and such.
  Back then i was a bit weird... now i'm mildly autistic (although my wife says i'm getting weirder as i get older).
  
  --
  soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
16. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by spiralx · 2010-10-21 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the fact that the assumption of homogeneity may not be true, see the first couple of points here.
17. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by shadowrat · 2010-10-21 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's an experiment to measure vibrations. if you are sitting on a whirling rock full of shifting matter, is that really a good place to measure the fundamental noise of space time? It's akin to setting up a recording studio in the open in times square.
  
  Logic dictates that if this noise exists, it would exist everywhere. So it's not like it wouldn't exist here. You can take your measurements, but you would probably want to find a very isolated part of the universe to repeat the experiment in at a later date.
18. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Pragmataraxia · 2010-10-21 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because photons travel differently in other enviroments(sic) than Earth?
  Yes. Otherwise your apparatus has to be large enough to maintain constant internal pressure (preferably 0), AND span your theorized bumps in spacetime. I don't know how large these ripples are, or how far apart they expect to find them, but I would expect they're going to need to span more distance than would be practical on Earth.
19. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Abcd1234 · 2010-10-21 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  's an experiment to measure vibrations. if you are sitting on a whirling rock full of shifting matter, is that really a good place to measure the fundamental noise of space time?
  Yes, I'm sure these PhD-holding theoretical physicists and the engineers involved in the project haven't considered this. Maybe you should send them an email and gift them with your deep insights.
20. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 02:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Because photons travel differently in other enviroments than Earth?
  Possibly
21. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Gravitron+5000 · 2010-10-21 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's not an entirely novel idea. Here's an example
22. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by c0lo · 2010-10-21 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Everything they will use to explain 'reality' will be done with beautiful math.
  The reverse is not necessarily true: there may be beautiful math that doesn't explain any reality.
  I'm putting this as a conjecture, for the math-heads to have something to do when the entire reality get explained.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
23. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by geekoid · 2010-10-21 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and there is a lot of solid data. There is a lot more data that need to be collected to get a better view of the universe, but that doesn't mean we don't already have some.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
24. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by careysub · 2010-10-21 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth? I would think you would have to do experiments in other environments, other than on Earth. All of the results of these experiments will have to allow for a large amount of beautiful math and a wonderful imagination.
  Because the Earth is, after all, a fixed point in space?
  The Sun moves relative to the galactic center 17 km/sec (thus covering 5.3 billion km in a decade). Earth travels 30 km/sec relative to the Sun, thus sweeping across a volume of space 300 million km across around the Sun annually, and a spiral path 10 billion km long each decade relative to the galaxy, while the Milky Way galaxy is moving at 630 km a second relative to the zero Hubble red shift frame of reference - which takes us over 200 billion km a decade. Physics experiments conducted a century ago where conducted at a point in space that is now 0.2 light years distant from where we are now!
  So even just staying put here on Earth we are actually sampling a nice region of the Universe, especially thanks to our galactic glider. Now, if you think the properties of the Universe vary with their position relative to the Earth's center of mass we replicate physics experiments in space about as often as budgets allow, as well testing this possibility frequently on mountains and in aircraft. And there are those physics experiments we call probes we send to the outer reaches of the Solar System (one of which has shown up a slight anomaly). And let us not forget that direct observation of the distant Universe provides direct tests of the constancy of physical law.
  So what are complaining about exactly? What should we be doing instead of what we are doing now?
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
25. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, presumably they've used the existing math to determine that the space alloted should yield results. I guess we'll see.
26. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by jeffasselin · 2010-10-21 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The constants could change, but the rules stay the same everywhere. It's the basic Principle of Relativity behind both special and general relativity, that the laws of physics are invariant of the frame of reference.
  
  --
  If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
27. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by lawpoop · 2010-10-21 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  You know what? They're surprisingly unreceptive to my offers of help. I keep writing them longer and longer emails, to no avail.
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
28. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by synaptic · 2010-10-21 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, what happened?
29. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by catmistake · 2010-10-21 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Everything they will use to explain 'reality' will be done with beautiful math.
  Math plays a part, but reality is really language. Whether that language is mathematics, or English, it matters not. In a sense, we create the Universe as we behold and describe it. We must look beyond the knee-jerk dismissing of anthropomorphism and semantics.
  Light travels incomprehensible distances, hits the lenses of our eyes, is flipped upside-down and focused on our retina, and the rods and cones there transfer that information to our brains' ocular centers, then reinterpreted to our understanding, then transcoded again to our logical and classification areas, then run through our language centers... yada yada yada... to our mouths... and we say "wow, look at the pretty colors, children," or what have you. The eyes and vision centers are not a complete necessity for world-creation, as the blind also have a way to feel out the world with hearing and touch. Perception can take many forms, but it is isolated and meaningless without language.
  Language is essential. Without language, in the strictest literal sense, there would be no Universe. Physicists always seem to gloss over this, but all cosmological volumes should begin with this principle: We are human, and we use language to observe.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
30. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  I read that as "Earth speed relative to the anteater." It lead to some very odd Googling...
31. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Off-Topic: Sorry, but for some reason I read that as "wildly autistic". Maybe in a few more years.....
32. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by jrade · 2010-10-25 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah... i did a school speech on that in public school. Everyone else did speeches about their summer vacations or their dogs and such.
  Back then i was a bit weird... now i'm mildly autistic (although my wife says i'm getting weirder as i get older).
  Weird? Never let a less intelligent society attach an adjective to you.
  
  --
  
  Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
33. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-25 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, don't worry... i don't even acknowledge that i am human anymore: humans are just too stupid and inane for me to be human.
  So, they aren't a less intelligent society, they are a less intelligent species (i think i am an extra terrestrial, really.
  ;-)
  
  --
  soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
34. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by jrade · 2010-10-25 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  Haha. You sound like my aspie 140+ IQ friend. The nicest guy, yet thinks he's better than everyone else, you ever met :)
  
  --
  
  Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
35. Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-25 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, i wouldn't go that far... my dad's even smarter than i am... he is definitely aspergers. I just know there are alot of mindless sheeple out there:
  example: Try watching Oprah's show or one of the others like it. Oprah could fart on stage and those sheeple in the audience would clap their minds out.
  Maybe i'm just don't want to be in the same class as sheeple and people who think the only interesting thing in the world is US/People magazine (OMG, BradGelina are adopting AGAIN!!!) and posting what they did on the toilet on Facebook.
  Alot of people just don't think about things, and i find myself disinterested in engaging them.
  Oh well... ;-)
  
  --
  soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Dear Slashdot by AdmiralXyz · 2010-10-21 00:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Please try to avoid posting two articles in a row with words like "hologram" in the title. My brain is now full of confusing images about the universe actually being a virtual Japanese pop star.

Much appreciated.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
1. Re:Dear Slashdot by RogueyWon · 2010-10-21 00:30 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  You mean nobody told you? Just don't ask which bit of her body the Milky Way is. Trust me, you really don't want to know.
2. Re:Dear Slashdot by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-10-21 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Please try to avoid posting two articles in a row with words like "hologram" in the title.
  Nonsense. Any sufficiently agile mind should be able to hologram the overload of information hologram in the situation where hologram duality is hologram hologram adjacent to another hologram hologram hologram hologram hologram. Hologram hologram hologram, hologram hologram hologram. Hologram hologram hologram hologram; hologram hologram. Hologram hologram hologram hologram! :-)
3. Re:Dear Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Kyle: Wait. Wait. I think I can explain this whole thing. Marklar, these marklars want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars to live here because it's bad for their marklar. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, eh or marklars.
  Marklar: Young marklar, your marklars are wise and true.
Computer... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:20 · Score: 0

Exit!
Nope, no arch....
Universe == Japanse Rock Star? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:24 · Score: 0

Maybe they'll find out that the holographic universe is actually an artificial rock star performing in the pan-dimensional equivalent of Japan.
Attempted before? by JarrodHatton · 2010-10-21 00:28 · Score: 1

How is this different than the the already attempted measurements of gravity waves?
1. Re:Attempted before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA
Theoretical Physics... by brendank310 · 2010-10-21 00:37 · Score: 2, Funny

the theory of a holographic universe will have some evidence of non-smoothness in space-time and perhaps a foothold in bringing light to the heavily debated theoretical physics."
Bringing light into theoretical physics eh? That might just be crazy enough to work!
You cannot prove anything... by forand · 2010-10-21 00:39 · Score: 1, Redundant

You cannot prove any theory without axioms (assumptions). You can, however, test a myriad of different scenarios which are all interconnected and ensure that a single theory adequately describes the data you take. As a theory, it provides predictions which can be falsified. When the physical range of a theory's predictive power extends beyond our ability to construct experiments then you pretty much have to find another job. But at no time have we proven anything. We have tested in as many cases we can think of for ways in which our theories fail. So in short yes we have to test our theories outside of earth (there are ways of doing this by observing phenomena throughout the universe of which the CMB is a perfect example).
1. Re:You cannot prove anything... by c0lo · 2010-10-21 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  When the physical range of a theory's predictive power extends beyond our ability to construct experiments then you pretty much have to find another job.
  Why find another job? After all, the guys that generate theories don't necessarily take the pain of proving them. The mathematicians are doing this for some centuries.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:You cannot prove anything... by geekoid · 2010-10-21 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  mathematicians don't have proofs?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:You cannot prove anything... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  The mathematical proof in a theory only proves that the math part is sound. It tells you nothing about whether the theory is an accurate model of reality. You have to do physical experimentation and observation and check it against the math to show that part.
Classical lasers? by tom17 · 2010-10-21 00:41 · Score: 0

"In a classical interferometer, first developed in the late 1800s, a laser beam in a vacuum hits a mirror called a beamsplitter, which breaks it in two".

And elsewhere:
"In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretic foundations for the LASER"

So what laser did they use in the 1800's?
1. Re:Classical lasers? by tom17 · 2010-10-21 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  Oh never mind, I get it now. Classical inteferometers developed in the 1800's used light, but newer 'classical' inteferometers use laser.
  
  Still bad wording though.
2. Re:Classical lasers? by OzPeter · 2010-10-21 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  So what laser did they use in the 1800's?
  Obviously you missed the recent event where the universe was replaced with something even more stranger.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:Classical lasers? by Thanshin · 2010-10-21 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  "In a classical interferometer, first developed in the late 1800s, a laser beam in a vacuum hits a mirror called a beamsplitter, which breaks it in two".
  And elsewhere:
  "In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretic foundations for the LASER"
  So what laser did they use in the 1800's?
  A candle and a lense.
  Yes, seriously.
  The method was first developed by sir Archibald Bradley, who... No, silly, I wasn't being serious.
4. Re:Classical lasers? by Artifakt · 2010-10-21 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  They really are Romantic Interferometers now. We started with Baroque Interferometers, but since those didn't work, next came Classical. The dark energy interferometers will be Serialist.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
5. Re:Classical lasers? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  In the late 1800s, the interference pattern was obtained by using a gas discharge lamp, a filter, and a thin slot or pinhole. In one version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the interferometer used starlight as the source of light. Starlight is temporally incoherent light, but since it is a point source of light it has spatial coherence and will produce an interference pattern.
  from wikipedia
A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by Moraelin · 2010-10-21 00:41 · Score: 5, Informative

"There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another that states that this has already happened." -- Douglas Adams

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
1. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by hvm2hvm · 2010-10-21 02:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That might be true or it might just be that we as humans are so far away from being able to grasp the Universe's true nature and reason that we cannot believe it even has one. Similarly to monkeys or dogs not even thinking about physics or anything rational when they see us do stuff with electricity.
  
  --
  ics
2. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by adavies42 · 2010-10-21 02:20 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  "There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another that states that this has already happened." -- Douglas Adams
  There is a third theory which states that Haruhi Suzumiya has already done this.
  
  --
  Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
  -kfg
3. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by bayduv1n · 2010-10-21 02:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  And a fourth that it was Al Gore who reinvented the universe.
4. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by countSudoku() · 2010-10-21 04:30 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I thought it was Hatsune Miku?
  
  --
  This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
5. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by severoon · 2010-10-21 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wait...this is theoretical physics, right? Why are they trying to do experiments???
  OH snap. :-)
  
  --
  but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
6. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  you americans must be so proud you almost had him as president
7. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by bayduv1n · 2010-10-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Flamebait? I was thinking funny, but maybe my sense of the ha ha's is different.
8. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Clarke's 3rd law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
9. Re:A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind by hvm2hvm · 2010-10-29 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, maybe there is an explanation for everything but we're just not smart enough. It may be a few IQ points or a whole new level of intelligence, either way, we cannot tell.
  
  --
  ics
Earth vibration? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:44 · Score: 0

Couldn't this be affected by vibrations in the earth both manmade and otherwise?
Seems like a job for the ISS?
Awesome by QuantumG · 2010-10-21 00:44 · Score: 1

The holographic universe theory is a return to beautiful simplicity.. the concepts are simple enough to understand and that math is really not all that hard either.
An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution: The holographic universe
By Leonard Susskind, James Lindesay
It's pretty readable.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Re:Awesome by radtea · 2010-10-21 03:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The holographic universe theory is a return to beautiful simplicity.. the concepts are simple enough to understand and that math is really not all that hard either.
  But apparently too difficult for the author of the article to understand. Otherwise they wouldn't write gibberish like this: In this two-dimensional cartoon of a universe, what we perceive as a third dimension would actually be a projection of time intertwined with depth.
  And would instead write something like: In the holographic universe all of the dynamics in three dimensions can be fully accounted for by the boundary condition on a two-dimensional surface. The third dimension is a result of a perfectly real, actual, objective, existing process. It is not in any sense "unreal" or "an illusion", since it obviously exists and it is by studying it that we have come to the conclusion that the real, objective, existing three dimensional universe might arise from a two-dimensional boundary plus some really cool physics!"
  The use of gibberish language, in which perfectly ordinary, real, objective physical phenomena like the third spatial dimension are describe as "an illusion" and "not real" won't help anyone understand the holographic universe theory, which is extremely beautiful, elegant and might even be true.
  The use of such gibberish language will only create barriers to understanding in the minds of lay-people, and only people who have no clue what reality is would ever use such language unless they cared more about confusing people than enlightening them.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
2. Re:Awesome by jedwidz · 2010-10-21 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  More nonsense from TFA:
  
  And although a holographic universe would answer many questions about black hole physics and other paradoxes, it clashes with classical geometry, which demands a universe of smooth, continuous paths in space and time.
  Since when has not 'clashing with classical geometry' been a criterion for a physical theory? In the last 100 years?
Hypothesis, not theory by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 00:51 · Score: 0

n/t
Could this be tested at LIGO by AmonRa1979 · 2010-10-21 00:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wouldn't LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory) be a good place to test this? It's much larger and already built. It seems like this is something they would have noticed by now.
1. Re:Could this be tested at LIGO by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's become an issue because of LIGO. They have had a problem with 'noise' that they can't seem to get rid of. A holographic universe could be the source of the 'noise'. Because a hologram encodes 3 dimensions of data in 2 dimensions, there is a loss of resolution. It's blurry. The noise problem they have may be due to the fact that at the quantum level the universe is 'blurry' and is producing the noise.
2. Re:Could this be tested at LIGO by marcosdumay · 2010-10-21 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  That experiment is much more precise for detecting such kinds of noise than LIGO. As an AC already posted here, the data that led to the original suspicion about the universe being holographic appeared on LIGO, but it isn't precise enough.
  TFA is quite poor on details... I remember reading about it, and it uses some kind of mechanism to get a virtual larger arm out of a physicaly short path. I don't remember if it just reflects the lasers several times, or if it does something more complex. I just remember that it wouldn't work for gravity waves detectors, and that is why those are larger.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
all fun and games by dlt074 · 2010-10-21 01:02 · Score: 2, Informative

until they actually do shut you down. http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Overheard at the lab: by Rude+Turnip · 2010-10-21 01:02 · Score: 1

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I want one for XMas by Tangential · 2010-10-21 01:06 · Score: 2

Now I know what to tell Santa that I want...My very own Holometer and my own Holographic Universe too!

--
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Why is it always Hawking? by swamp_ig · 2010-10-21 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

The holographic universe theory comes from work by Gerardus 't Hooft. Sure Hawking did some work on it as well, can't they say Gerardus 't Hooft *and* Hawking?
I guess it's a consequence of small pools...
1. Re:Why is it always Hawking? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  And please make that *Gerard* 't Hooft. Nobody talks about William Henry Gates III right?
  Of course, Susskind should be mentioned too. Those are the main originators, I don't think Hawking had anything to do with, except write about it in some popular science book.
2. Re:Why is it always Hawking? by Philomage · 2010-10-21 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  The holographic universe theory comes from work by Gerardus 't Hooft. Sure Hawking did some work on it as well, can't they say Gerardus 't Hooft *and* Hawking?
  I guess it's a consequence of small pools...
  Well, I know I can't... how DO you pronounce 't anyway?
3. Re:Why is it always Hawking? by MozeeToby · 2010-10-21 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The key idea of the holographic principle is that the physics of a volume can be expressed on the surface area of a sphere containing that volume. Hawking was the first one to find that result, specifically he found that the entropy of a black hole was in proportion to the surface area of the event horizon, rather than the volume it enclosed.
  I don't know... obviously Hawking's work doesn't exist in a vacuum. Obviously there are lots and lots of important discoveries and insights that lots and lots of other scientists have come up with. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that Hawking was the one to come up with the core ideas of the holographic principle, 't Hooft expanded that into a way to describe the whole universe.
4. Re:Why is it always Hawking? by jfengel · 2010-10-21 04:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "Ut". It's an abbrevation of "het", meaning "the".
  Here's a video of him speaking (in Dutch), introducing himself, sounding like HE-rard ut-HOFT:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qsf6Q4xSrU&feature=related
5. Re:Why is it always Hawking? by spiralx · 2010-10-21 08:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, that would be Jacob Bekenstein. Hawking and Bekenstein collaborated to precisely fix the ratio of entropy to surface area, but the original idea wasn't Hawking's.
Terrible Summary by Tim+C · 2010-10-21 01:38 · Score: 0

"By building two relatively small devices that act as "holographic interferometers" to measure the shaking or vibration in split beams of light traveling through a vacuum." is not a sentence. What will be achieved by doing this?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
1. Re:Terrible Summary by c0lo · 2010-10-21 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "By building two relatively small devices that act as "holographic interferometers" to measure the shaking or vibration in split beams of light traveling through a vacuum." is not a sentence. What will be achieved by doing this?
  For sure, they'll achieve more than!
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
How do you know they'll shut it down? by Moraelin · 2010-10-21 01:52 · Score: 4, Funny

How do you know it'll be shut down. I mean I can also imagine the scenario that involves a booming voice going,
"Ah-ha, motherfuckers. That's the moment I've been waiting for. You're finally smart enough to understand what I'm gonna say more than that goat-fucker.. err.. herder I caught hanging around a burning hemp bush some 3000 of your years ago. Moses, I think he was called. Like that I didn't go 'let there be light' like that stoner wrote. What I told him was that I coded transform and lighting first. And of course the Earth was without form and void, because everything was: I had a 4 triangle tetrahedron as the only object to test that transform and lighting shit on. But judging by what's on your instruments right now, you've just figured out what I'm saying. Smart lads.
"But I think you have a bunch of questions first, we'll get to the cosmology later...
"What? Original sin? Well, when those two did it, it may have been original for your world, 'cause there was nobody to do it before them, but in the meantime it's kinda copycat sin if you get my drift. And which of them do you mean? Those two had quite the kinky ideas... Oh, apple? Nah, let's just say they got kicked out for more like bug abuse and duping items, and let's leave it at that. Next question...
"If I really hate women? What kind of retarded question is that? I wouldn't have made them if I hated them. Or I could have taken them out in a patch. Mind you, I might have dropped that Moses guy a hint that I'm not really into women, but the rest is his own confabulation.
"Which brings me to the next point, actually. I totally didn't tell him to kill gays. I mean, I just told you I'm not into women. You figure it out." ;)

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
1. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by FredFredrickson · 2010-10-21 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to read more of this newsletter, if you can please continue. Perhaps a book?
  
  --
  Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
2. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by Gizzmonic · 2010-10-21 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  God as a programmer/BOFH?
  A little masturbatory, don't you think?
  
  --
  (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
3. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by Moraelin · 2010-10-21 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The whole hypothesis is that the universe is a _digital_ hologram. As in, literally, the information is encoded in _pixels_. And there is a rather serious possible implication that the universe might be a digital simulation.
  I dunno. It kinda seems natural that if someone wrote a digital simulation, they would be a programmer, and running whatever machine does it would make them an admin. I mean, really, the setup doesn't exactly leave many other options available even if I wanted to take the piss in a different way.
  
  --
  A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
4. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by smaddox · 2010-10-21 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The whole problem with the "the universe is a simulation" gig is that it doesn't answer any questions or solve any problems. It's just one more turtle on the stack. Sure, it might be true, Occam's Razor says it's not very likely.
  A commenter posted something on here a few months ago that I thought was extremely insightful:
  
  Any chain of logic (or causality) must either extend forever and ever, or stop at something that just 'is', and both options are nonsensical. (This is equally true whether or not any of the links in the chain are God)." - Slashdot comment http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1774738&cid=33449910 by http://slashdot.org/~timeOday
5. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by Moraelin · 2010-10-21 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. It's not like I'm calling it a theory or using it to prove anything. But when making a joke in answer to a message (in fact two messages in response to each other) about someone turning off the simulation, you kinda have limited room to wiggle.
  But at any rate, that God post was a joke post. (And in response to a joke post.) Maybe not the best of jokes by a wide margin, but still not serious stuff. You kinda have to play fast and loose with the science there, because just going on about the jitter in laser beams that was observed and the quantity of information in the hologram kinda tends to not make many people laugh. And probably would make 90% of people just go cross eyed. Most people's understanding of Schrödinger's Cat stops at "cat". Complex calculation showing a digital-like jitter with an inaccuracy greater than a Planck length? Oooer. I think you'd have to be a genius to fit a punchline that passes Occam's Razor to that one even if you're talking to the LHC physicists.
  So, anyway, it was a joke. It wasn't supposed to be a valid logic chain. In fact, by the incongruity and resolution theory of fun, you kinda can't have it fully logical _and_ funny.
  So if it fails to be a valid chain of logic and causality? _Good_. That's what I was aiming for. That's the kind of jokes I know how to make.
  And just to make it clear, it wasn't some kind of sneaking in God as a link either. Or really not the kind your average church would teach you about. You know, in case those parts about transform and lighting and God being gay didn't already make that clear. It's just my taking-the-piss character that I sneak into jokes about religion.
  
  --
  A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
6. Re:How do you know they'll shut it down? by dissy · 2010-10-21 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  "The whole problem with the "the universe is a simulation" gig is that it doesn't answer any questions or solve any problems."
  It does answer the question of "Does smaddox have a sense of humor while replying to a joke" ;}
Finally by ath1901 · 2010-10-21 01:52 · Score: 1

This would be a very interesting experiment if they make it work. Not so much because it may prove/disprove a holographic universe but because there is such a lack of experiments to test anything at all within (modern) theoretical physics.
The theoretical models has been far ahead of the experiments since the 1950s (i.e. the models are more accurate than the experiments). Any experimental results at all would be most welcome.
Theories without experimental support is just guessing **cough** string theory **cough**. (It doesn't have to be strong support, just something simple like "the noise should have a distribution X and Behold! It has.")
Not Hawking... by Jedi+Holocron · 2010-10-21 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hawking's proposal that black holes destroy information lead to OTHERS developing the Holographic theory. Hawking had nothing to do with the development of the holographic theory, complimentarity, etc...
1. Re:Not Hawking... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  &complimentarity
  "My, your universe is looking especially 2D today! Did you just get it renormalized?"
OMG! Parent poster is being jammed... by denzacar · 2010-10-21 03:08 · Score: 1

...by HOLOGRAM HOLOGRAM HOLOGRAM from hologram hologram hologram of hologram hologram, hologram hologram hologram!
Hologram hologram hologram hologram? Hologram?!

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:OMG! Parent poster is being jammed... by enjerth · 2010-10-21 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hologram! Wonderful hologram!
  But I don't like holograms!
2. Re:OMG! Parent poster is being jammed... by Loko+Draucarn · 2010-10-21 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Hologram, did you crawl through the little door that lets people int Mr. Hologram's mind again?
Holodeck by Tablizer · 2010-10-21 03:11 · Score: 1

Computer, end holodeck program called "deep recession"......Computer?

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Holodeck by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Geordi: Captian, we're getting hit by something the likes of which I've never seen before. It seems that we're being bombarded with an influx of currency decapacitors. My sensor readings indicate deflation, but commodities are rising rapidly.
  Data: More than that, captain. The Borg are charging their quantitave easing cannon again.
  Picard: Red alert.
Master Yoda says: by sourcerror · 2010-10-21 03:27 · Score: 1

I feel disturbance in the force.
Computer, Arch. by BenSchuarmer · 2010-10-21 03:38 · Score: 1

Nope, we're not a hologram.
Very poor summary. Proofreading fail! by macraig · 2010-10-21 03:56 · Score: 1

This summary borders on incoherent. I would have expected better, from what little I thought I knew of Eldavojohn. There are incomplete sentences and byzantine arrangements of word and phrase that effectively make no sense. It's possible with effort to discern what each sentence intends to convey, but why is that effort necessary? Where was the proofreading?
I don't think I'd be exaggerating to say that this was the worst summary I can ever recall reading at Slashdot, and I have read many thousands.
The smoothness of the universe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 04:02 · Score: 0

depends on the amount of time since the last shave.
another, but similar theory by tessellated · 2010-10-21 06:50 · Score: 1

'Seth Lloyd - Programing the Universe' is an interresting read. Hey concludes, that a quantum computer simulation of reality is indistinguishable from the real thing.

--
'When the Going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro.' - Hunter S. Thompson
Hawking is on the correct path by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-21 07:21 · Score: 0

Hawking is correct, space time is far from "smooth", but he has not yet discussed the larger implication of this. The "texture" of space time is in fact the actual underlying source of "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". They are effects of this texture, not independent components in the same sense as a proton or photon.
Malkovich. by zooblethorpe · 2010-10-21 08:51 · Score: 1

Malkovich,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
1. Re:Malkovich. by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-10-21 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  You win. :-)
Wouldn't the surface have to be 3D? by morty_vikka · 2010-10-21 09:22 · Score: 1

Could somebody please enlighten me by answering this question: If the 3D universe can be encoded on a 2D surface, would not that surface have to be curved i.e. be three dimensional itself?
1. Re:Wouldn't the surface have to be 3D? by mhotchin · 2010-10-21 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  The dimension of a thing refers to what you would see if you were 'trapped' in the thing. For example, the surface of the earth is *two* dimensional - every point on it is fully specified using lat. and lon. Think 'Flatland', except that instead of an infinite plane, it 'wraps around'.
  
  Now, that two dimension thing may be 'embedded' in (or on) a higher dimension object (again, like the surface of the earth), but that doesn't change how the thing looks like if you are trapped in it.
question... by linatux · 2010-10-21 10:41 · Score: 0

How many dimensions could be encoded on the surface of 3 dimensions?
1. Re:question... by frogzilla · 2010-10-22 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  The volume is three-dimensional, the surface is two-dimensional.
Plank Length Cheating is The Real Issue by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-10-22 05:45 · Score: 1

You *could* extrapolate that to mean that our universe is, when you get down to its bare essence, only data. And you *could* extrapolate that to mean we are data in a simulation somewhere. But that's two leaps of logic past what the science is actually saying.
No, you're missing the interesting wrinkle, and that's the apparent Plank length. If the Plank length is A, the Universe behaves in way A'. If the Plank length is B, the Universe behaves in way B'. This is fine - we see the Universe behaving as A', and therefore the Plank length is A.
The trick is you can set up a very specific physics experiment and look for noise signals in the Universe's smoothness. Those noise signals will either be missing (Plank length is as we expect it) or correspond to a simulation model (the noise is the cheating in the model).
When some scientists unwittingly did the experiment, they found such a noise signal and, unbeknownst to them at the time, it maps almost exactly to a model that imagines a simulated universe with a Plank length cheat (10^-27 vs 10^-35, IIRC) that's just a short enough Plank length to make the Universe behave as if the Plank length were A, when really it measures as B. So, we get an A' Universe but with only the simulation costs of a B' Universe, and [here's the speculation] cheats that make a B' Universe behave like an A' Universe.
Or, to abuse Einstein, apparently God does play dice, and he cheats like a bastard at it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)