Fermilab To Test Holographic Universe Theory

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."

Comments

Physicists

[rbarreira]

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

Re:Physicists

[Remus Shepherd]

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.

Re:Physicists

[lymond01]

The lord PUSHeth and the lord POPeth away.

Re:Physicists

[frogzilla]

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.

Re:Physicists

[egomaniac]

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.

Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth

[lxs]

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.

Dear Slashdot

[AdmiralXyz]

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.

Re:Reality of data gathered on Earth

[Jugalator]

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?

A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind

[Moraelin]

"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

Re:Could this be tested at LIGO

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How do you know they'll shut it down?

[Moraelin]

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." ;)

Re:Awesome

[radtea]

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.

Re:Why is it always Hawking?

[spiralx]

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.