Slashdot Mirror
Simulations Back Up Theory That Universe Is a Hologram
ananyo writes "A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection. In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity. Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa. But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive. In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena's conjecture is true."
this would make boobs boring. don't believe it.
Seems like hand-waving to call it a "projection".
I have no idea what any of this stuff means, but I'm going to post it on my Facebook and claim that this is what I thought all along anyway.
The matrix is real???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
who appear to us as mice
...is no longer not even wrong ?
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
Then they will tell you it is recursive too.
But it happened long time ago and in a galaxy far away.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I hate to tell you but not all scientists are doctors, and also cancer is not the only issue that is affecting us today. The more we understand about the universe, the more we understand about ourselves.
In other words, what are YOU doing to cure cancer since you think that "scientists" should focus on cancer instead of XX.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
There's no room for physicists.
why oh why are scientists wasting time on this? one step at at time, for now figure out how to cure cancer before worrying about the big picture. you must unzip your pants before worrying about how much piss comes out
Really???? If all "scientists" thought like that then we wouldn't be in a position to even KNOW what *cancer* is. We'd be stuck on a problem prior to that hundreds of years ago.
Science is all about looking far and wide for answers. Sometimes things are immediately applicable to your specific problem/condition/annoyance/life, but sometimes they aren't.
Applied science / engineering is more about solutions to your specific problem. Perhaps you can go ask the bio-medical engineers to hurry it up, but leave the scientists alone!
why are you wasting time reading Slashdot? Millions of children are dying in Africa as we speak. You must go help them before worrying about anything else.
It's turtles all the way down to turtle prime which is a comic book.
Quite a lot older.
So the flat earth society is right?
A lot of people might find this a little hokey, especially coming from the journal Nature. The biggest thing to overcome is science fictions deception of other dimensions. A dimension is just another direction. We know about the six directions we can currently move in (3 dimensions) plus time (which we always move forward through at a constant rate; you can slow down how fast you move through time relative to everything else, but it's not noticeable unless you can afford a very very fast vehicle). Here's a great explanation of extra dimensions:
http://www.phdcomics.com/tv/#010
The other "Things explained" videos are also really good for understanding more complex physics concepts.
just goo & new clear charges plus the undefeatable spirit of creation.. never a better time to consult with momkind our spiritual centerpeace. free the innocent stem cells they have harmed no one.
if we like our current smoke & mirrors.......
Why cancer? Why not aids? Or ebola? Or the common cold?
Actually, since you are telling people who have no skills related to biology that they should just suddenly jump ship and try and cure cancer, what are you doing to that end? Let me guess, you're the PHB who yells at everyone else to "just do it"?
It's R2D2 all the way down, man.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/13/1434223/physicists-devise-test-for-whether-the-universe-is-a-simulation
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/21/0326216/fermilab-to-test-holographic-universe-theory
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/16/1446238/the-universe-as-hologram
Yes, but I only worry about how much piss comes out when I'm unable to unzip my pants. Once I'm able to unzip my pants, it doesn't matter how much piss comes out.
So beyond the obvious faults with this oversimplification, the Universe is Flat? Perhaps not in the way a table is flat... but still.
Well I was wasting time reading it for fun but now I'm doing it out of gut-wrenching depression that I'm not doing anything worthwhile.
String theory et al give us some testable predictions? Until then its just a crock of bullshit that has wasted 30 years of physics (though certainly enhanced the bottom line of many a journal).
... where my evil twin is residing!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There's more about it here. This recent work basically suggests that the theory might be true. It is a doubly useful theory in that it allows certain difficult problems in string theory to be solved in the language of conformal field theories and vice versa. If nothing else, it means string theory can be used as a computational tool in certain problems of condensed matter physics even if string theory doesn't pan out as a theory for quantum gravity. But it also makes string theory more likely as a theory for quantum gravity as it makes it in some sense compatible with the holographic principle, which among other things provides a solution to the information paradox of black holes.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
But, don't you see? This shows that cancer is just part of a simulation. Now, we just need to figure out a way to break out of the simulation (like Neo) and... will the cancer to be gone... or something.
(I'm rolling my eyes as I type this. This whole simulation premise is just a modern rehash of ancient philosophical machination.)
sig: sauer
Holograms are not projected 'onto' something.
They 'materialize' in thin air, that is the point about a hologram. (Hollow != Solid)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You do realize that quantum mechanics were met with similar derision? Heck, Einstein never really accepted the notion, and that's as great a scientist as we've ever had. It took years to devise experiments that could validate quantum mechanics' existence.
This isn't to say that this theory is right or wrong, merely that groundbreaking theories almost invariably will look like "mathematical fancy" to most people (especially those with "get off my lawn!" syndrome) and will be met with confusion or denial by a lot of others, including respected scientists. It's crazy, but it might just work. Remember: the universe wasn't designed so that our puny minds would find it logical or straightforward. It just is.
Can I get a few minutes with the source code and a quick reboot?
Of course, this could mean that half of the potential alternative projections of reality will turn out to be slightly shittier versions of what we have now.
But the other half will have jet packs and rocket cars! And no marketing directors!
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Now that we are searching for evidence of this hologram, and may be close to establishing something approaching 'proof', won't the folks projecting the hologram alter the program to make it more difficult for us to determine if we are living in a hologram and thus negate our findings which will lead us to do more research and in turn cause the hologram to be changed again? Rinse and repeat.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Nobody is saying that the universe is precisely a hologram stored on a flat plane, so before you call it horseshit, you could try to read what they are actually saying. Also, the particular theory they are talking about here has actually been tested, at least somewhat: people used it to compute some stuff about gluon plasma, which they then tested against LHC data, and it matched quite well. So the theories do work, and they can be used to compute real predictions.
You are having typical type mismatch and buffer overflow. Relax. My brain fried when I heard about quantum theory. I do not try to understand physics anymore. Somebody will find a way to test all these crazy theories one day. Then we will live in a parallel universe and real estate on earth will be really cheap.
Is this related to the work that Arkani Hamed and Trnka are doing with Ampletuhedrons? They have discovered a geometry that simplifies calculations and that suggests space and time might not be fundamental to physics.
All 3D holograms can be stored in two dimensions. Stop "debunking" science you do not even begin to grasp the faintest notion of.
Someone clever was working out the maximum entropy of a black hole, and found that (unexpectedly) it was proportional to the surface area of the event horizon, not its volume. After some more thought, other clever people found that the full state of every particle that falls into a black hole remains encoded as oscillations and deformations of its surface area.
This leads to the realization that the despite the fact that a black hole's event horizon is seemingly much simpler than a full-dimensional portion of a universe, it's theoretically possible that it's just as rich a simulation. Perhaps the "real" representation of the universe is actually just a rippling membrane, and the 3D view we see around us is just an alternate interpretation. This is where the word "hologram" comes in - it's only an analogy (because flattish holograms seem to encode 3D data).
Now, the word "real" is misleading - neither representation is 'more true', it's just that the fewer-dimensional representation might be a lot simpler. A comparable situation is the way the earth goes around the sun, or the sun goes around the earth. A stationary sun makes models of the planetary orbits a heck of a lot simpler, but a stationary earth makes it a lot easier to give directions to your party.
All of this was theoretical until this recent finding. The researches created two mathematical models of the universe - one of them ten-dimensional (similar to some forms of modern theories of our universe, though the article points out their model was simpler). The other model was a one-dimensional universe filled with ideal springs. These models were identical, in the same way as the 3D universe and the event horizon - they're alternate ways of calculating the same thing.
The researchers discovered that simulations in both of these universe models have the same output - in other words, they do seem to be different ways of describing the same universe.
and earth is Rimmer world?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Ummm ... from what I recall of linear algebra (and possibly a little calculus), a hologram is a special case of a projection onto a plane, only your 'plane' is now 3 dimensions. And you can keep extending that ad nauseum -- as in you can project 7 dimensions onto 4 dimensions too, if you can figure out a way to make that mean something to you.
In which case I think they're talking about projection from n-dimensions onto m-dimensions, where m < n and n=9 in this case.
It's not a plane per-se. It's a smaller set of dimensions with a representation of something in higher dimensions. Relative to 4 dimensions, 3 dimensions is a 'plane' (I forget the mathematical term).
Well, at a certain point, theoretical physics devolves into abstract math, and people trying to come up with models which explain what we see.
I mostly agree with you, because string theory always seems like it's so abstract as to serve no purpose. However, I'm also not qualified to do the math and fully follow the logic behind it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's somewhat disturbing to me that in addition to not understanding the summary, I also don't understand your explanation or for that matter, what the topic under discussion even might be (other than some vague physics thing).
Also I realized apparently I don't know what a holograph is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The way I think of the universe, is like a 11 dimensional sphere of putty, that got hit with a hammer. (aka the big bang).
So, the sphere got deformed spraying outward in 3 dimensions (space) while flying off into a 4th (time) and the other 7 dimensions got compressed.
A Particle is a bit of energy caught in a loop around some number of those 7 dimensions, each combination of possible wrapping gives a different fundamental particle, with antiparticles having the same wrap, but opposing spin.
Light/radio 'waves' are caused by the photons looping around one of the higher dimensions, not one of our 3 spatial dimensions, which is how it is travelling in a straight line space, yet still taking a wavering path; like a piece of string wrapped around an infinitesimally small cylinder.
But that's just my mental model, it work well enough to keep me from going mad (I think)
So, the headline is quite wrong. Nothing in this work has directly to do with our universe, nor does it show that we live in a hologram. What it does do is provide some further evidence for a string theory conjecture called AdS/CFT. This conjecture says that "string theory in d dimensions" is precisely the same as "conformal field theory in d-1 dimensions". This is cute, since it lets us calculate some things, for example, one might be interested in calculating something in some field theory, but it is very difficult to do. AdS/CFT lets us translate that thing into a string theory thing, which usually is easier to compute. So people working in condensed matter physics, particle physics and QCD are actually using this string theory conjecture as a computational tool. However, AdS/CFT tells us nothing about our universe, since we know that the type of string theories it talks about can't describe our universe. So it is "only" a useful toy model and computational tool. The article is about that some guys have run computer simulations to calculate something on both sides, so both on the string side, and in the field theory side, and what they get match, as it should if the conjecture is true. This is nice and lends further evidence to the conjecture, but there is plenty of other evidence already known, both numerical and theoretical. So I fail to see how this is important or newsworthy, it feels mostly like useless hype.
Don't you understand? There's a hologram which contains everything about the world. Including how to cure cancer. And those scientists are just starting to understand how to read it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
God is watching us on TV?
Agreed. I don't get arguments from parent x 2. There's 7+ Billion people on this planet. It isn't a matter of focusing on 1 thing or another. There's enough people to attack everything, all at once. Posters problem seems to be how money, and time of free will, are being spent. That in and of itself, speaks volumes to their narrowmindedness.
If we broke off the simulation we might cause cancer on the true reality.... read Rasen, one of the sequels of Ringu....
Cool, but my head hurts trying to understand the theory.
They both leave me wondering if they're just big jokes perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.
Basically, there are two major concepts.
First, is duality. This is where two models can represent the same system (they are duals of each other). The thing with duality is that in many cases, a problem that is impossible to solve in one model may be trivially done in another. You may know the duality between time-domain and frequency-domain systems - a convolution in one is a multiplication in the other (which is handy for some really difficult convolutions).
The other concept is a hologram. Take a traditional hologram you can buy as a souvenir - it's just a flat piece of transparent material (glass or plastic), yet look through it and you see a 3D image hovering in space - projected if you will, in 3D. And it is 3D, because you can look around the object. Yet the object is stored on a 2D medium. (FYI - the same concept applies to holographic sights - the dot is projected on the target in 3D space). Holograms are useful because they can cast higher dimensional spaces into lower dimensional spaces, yet retain the original resolution and details of the higher dimensional space (or how they get a 3D projection on a 2D surface).
Holographic theory is one where our 3D world is actually on a 2D surface. Like a hologram.
Now, what the results are is that they found a set of dual systems that represent reality - between string theory and quantum mechanics using holographic theory. In other words, they could do a calculation using string theory and have the results line up with quantum mechanics (and holograms). By proving this, a difficult problem in quantum mechanics can be translated to string theory and be easily solved there, then the results translated back, which gives the same answer as if you did it the hard way.
for (this : things){
System.out.println("why oh why are scientists wasting time on " + this + "? one step at at time, for now figure out how to cure cancer before worrying about the big picture. you must unzip your pants before worrying about how much piss comes out");
}
Does that answer it for you?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The "hol" in hologram comes from whole, not hole, which is where the "hol" in hollow comes from.
The "hol" in holy also comes from whole, too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Holograms are not stored in 2 dimensions.
Not in our universe, perhaps.
Physicists need to stop tugging their dicks in mathematical fancy and start developing ways to TEST things.
As opposed to Slashdotters who waggle their knobs in the air, making themselves feel smart by declaring that physicists are all stupid, because if they (John Q. Slashdotter) can't understand an analogy then it can't be true.
"Hologram" here is not meant to suggest that there's literally a light-years wide piece of photographic film floating out in a lower-level universe with us encoded on it. You may as well argue that regular explosions don't create matter so the big bang theory* must be a load of rubbish.
*Yes, I know that's also the name of a TV show. No, you're not going to be funny if you pick up on that.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's simple, Descartes was right and you are wrong. The Universe is not a big computer simulation, and you do exist.
How do you know? If you can actually prove those things you deserve a Nobel prize. Oh, wait, let me guess. You're not a scientist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
My 5 minute search, I am unable to see evidence whole and hole are related, which is possible, ironically, since they are kind of opposites. In any case, even if so, hologram derives from the concept of whole, not hollow/hole.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Everyone should read about Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity. This explains the workings of the cosmos much better than Relativity, and Quantum Physics. Because Dynamic Theory of Gravity leave no gaps between the quantum world, and everything else. Tesla makes Einstein, and Hawking look like a baby trying to learn advanced Chemistry. If you put them both together, they could not even come close to the IQ of Tesla.
That would seem to support some of the things Tesla proposed. Weird.
Just because we are all holograms does that make us any less real? I think therefore I am! I have feelings damn it! :)
I thought it came from 'holistic', but I could have just been spending too much time around those newage hippies.
Obviously, you've never met Automan.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
yes. this is absolutely correct and I think this every time I read anything about the 'holographic' universe
however, TFA, once you get past the headlines, doesn't really explain much beyond quoting the researchers on the work's *implications* on string theory and quantum mechanics in general
so, it really isn't that informative
what they're really saying is that the universe is ***made of light***....or say 'electro-magnetic radiation' instead of light b/c its more than visible light obv.
think of the edge of the universe as the edge of a black hole event horizon...in this case, a true 'black body'...at the event horizon, the last thing we can know about the matter/energy at all is the last "light" (aka electro magnetic radiation of all bands) before the very waves of light meet the infinite chaos that is the black hole event horizon. The moment it crosses it is instantaneously obliterated/absorbed by the nothingness/black hole
to put this into context, one branch of a part of high energy physics was founded on a distinction between some old ruling observation/theorem and then the Cosmic Microwave Background came along and flipped everything on its head...the universe is accelerating when it should be decelerating...that new energy pushing the acceleration is 'dark energy'
but, according to this research, we can still have a universe that is essentially made of electro-magnetic radiation...vibrating through the *medium* of the 1-dimensional "strings"...but that's another topic
Thank you Dave Raggett
Last I checked the definition, holography was crafting a visual that's subjective to viewing angle (causing 3D) on a 2D medium. The last couple words refer to solids.
Projections onto glass (eg gorillaz/vocaloid concerts) that appear the same from any angle wouldn't qualify. Holograms today are usually suspended in glass or whatever, but some are flatter and in effect they're like a sculpture inside a paper (2D medium, I don't mean actual tree pulp) the feel of which you may recognize from 3D TV, the 3DS, or from stereoscopic images.
The more mainstream (scifi) variant is detached sources of light, all of which are subject to viewing angle (even block each other somehow). The cause/origin ("materialization"?) of these floating light sources is usually vague.
None of what I've written has much to do with the article, the headline of which REALLY should boil down to "evidence found supporting Maldacena's 16-year-old idea [1]."
[1] - our stringtheoryverse is causality from a flatverse, conflicting formulae rejoice
Ironically, parent post was bitching about testing shit when the article is about physicist testing actual numbers (eg energy values of black holes, universes, see TFA) with results that support Maldacena's 16-year-old idea.
So what we're bitching about (without realizing it) is sensationalized headlines. But don't blame the media/journalists, whose industry is just reacting intelligently to a derped facetweet population. Which brings us full circle to this page's very first post, where a /.er sarcastically points out that people really do namedrop flashy science on socnets to pretend they're associated with intellectual subjects.
-- AC.Falos
The "hol" in hologram comes from whole, not hole, which is where the "hol" in hollow comes from.
Sorry, it comes from the ancient Greek word 'holos' (modern 'olos') which means whole, complete, or entire.
The word 'holy' is an English word, not a Greek word.
--
.nosig
The search for equations to more accurately describe the observable universe is often first formed as a hypothesis, then once the hypothesis is formalized and can be tested it may become a Theory or Law. One can come to such equations through direct observation, such as thermodynamics or Newtonian Gravity, or be theoretical until proven, like Einstein's curved space-time. In other words one can observe something strange then attempt to explain it, or formulate explanations that cover known observations and look for other oddities it may predict later.
String theory of today is not the same as it was 30 years ago. "Crock of Bullshit" isn't remotely descriptive. Once worked out the equations may predict counter-intuitive results, such as when Einstein's equations indicated Black Holes existed... Doubters were rebuffed when we discovered them. All of the equations of physics are wrong -- or, more correctly: they are inaccurate estimations of reality, some are more accurate than others. Newtonian Gravity was verified through observation, and the gravitational constant was calculated -- We later discovered this was wrong. However, it's still a damn good approximation.
Was it a waste for Newton to study gravitation? It had no immediate practical application for every day life, except to explain oddities of celestial motion... We continue to search for a set of equations that are more accurate than what we have now. The history of physics is rife with explosions of disparate equations, and then collapsing of them into more overarching elegant systems of understanding. Equations that provide more accurate results are testable via more accurate observations, even if the equations are not founded on direct physical observation themselves.
When some suggest that "The Universe is like unto a Hologram" due to examination of String Theory, and you call the very equations untestable predictions you only provide direct evidence that that low UID numbers do not necessarily correlate with intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom.
QED.
Sorry couldn't resist thinking of two scenes.
>SNIPSNIP
[McKittrick] (McKittrick approaches Beringer) Jack, there's nothing to indicate a simulation at all. Everything is working perfectly!
[Stephen Falken] But does it make any sense?
[General Beringer] Does what make any sense?
[Stephen Falken] (points to the screens) That!
I met automake, that was bad enough :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How do I know? Logic, study, rational thought. Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either? These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years. Oh, wait, let me guess. You are not a Philosopher, and perhaps don't understand why Philosophy is relevant to science.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No, 'this' is a reserved word in java.
http://xkcd.com/171/
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
My understanding of what it REALLY means is that a model with few dimensions can describe a reality with many dimensions. TFS presumes that the small model is "real" and the many-dimensioned model is the "projection". Database designers see that it's the opposite - reality is complex, but it can be represented using a calculus that has two dimensions, like tables in MySql.
vibrating octolpes of the quantum molecular fluctuating filter flanges clearly disproves this theory, we are in fact a decagram, not a hologram.
You might want to read up on what a hologram is. Hint: hologram != simulation.
for now figure out how to cure cancer before worrying about the big picture.
Boy will you have egg on your face when their research leads to the development of a machine that allows us to isolate and neutralize all the cancer cells in a body in one quick pass. Yes, as a side effect it will actually cause an egg to materialize, go to your house, knock on your door, and hit you. Right in the face. That's the wonder of quantum mechanics.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Our existence is just some entity's game of Sim City.
Not. Even. Wrong.
None of this is evidence of anything, and anyone who takes these ideas for granted, without the slightest experimental proof whatsoever, can be assumed to be no longer talking about physics.
Arbitrary simulations are not evidence of anything. If you can't even accurately model the planet in a simulation for weather patterns, how do you expect to model something as complex as the universe?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
That is exactly backwards. Unlike General Relativity, quantum mechanics was driven by experiment almost every step of the way. It was met with some derision (and worse, see, e.g., Nazi Germany), but it was experimentally based. (BTW, Einstein accepted that it explained the (then available) experimental data, he just thought that it wasn't the entire explanation.)
"one step at at time,"
so the wheel should not have been invented until cancer was cured?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
no, it is not.
It might not be real, but it does fit with the current scientific understanding. I suspect a simpler solution will be found.
Then everyone will slap their forehead and say 'U=ET cubed! of course it's so trivial!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
JEM?
How do I know? Logic, study, rational thought.
Oh, that's me convinced then.
Any evidence?
Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either?
I expect they're trying, which is better than simply declaring something to be true.
These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Vindication.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You do realize that quantum mechanics were met with similar derision? Heck, Einstein never really accepted the notion, and that's as great a scientist as we've ever had. It took years to devise experiments that could validate quantum mechanics' existence.
This isn't to say that this theory is right or wrong, merely that groundbreaking theories almost invariably will look like "mathematical fancy" to most people (especially those with "get off my lawn!" syndrome) and will be met with confusion or denial by a lot of others, including respected scientists. It's crazy, but it might just work. Remember: the universe wasn't designed so that our puny minds would find it logical or straightforward. It just is.
Another thing that can happen is that scientists apply doublethink. So for example, many scientist simultaneously believed for about 200 years that everything that happens boils down to small particles interacting through direct contact (aka bouncing off of one another) and that Newton's theory of gravity, which relies on attractive forces in empty space, were both valid. Think about it for a while. How do you get an attractive force by bouncing stuff of other stuff? Well, here are some attempts at squaring that circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation.
Many scientists today believe that the universe is deterministic, even though the math, which is supported by mountains of evidence, require it to have all sorts of uncertainties built-in.
...so before you call it horseshit, you could try to read what they are actually saying. Also, the particular theory they are talking about here has actually been tested, at least somewhat: people used it to compute some stuff about gluon plasma, which they then tested against LHC data, and it matched quite well. So the theories do work, and they can be used to compute real predictions.
Which papers are these? The two papers referenced above do not discuss this at all, and I am not aware of any LHC results dealing with quantum gravity. References would be appreciated.
So... what I'm getting out of that explanation is that it's entirely possible that our universe is like the Galaxy in Men in Black. In a small jewel within another Universe which is possibly within another in the same way, etc etc.
Awesome. Let's hope no one destroys it.
Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish. That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible. If you claim that theoretical numbers are "evidence" you really need to look up the definition.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense for hypothetical theories that people claim are factual. Broken logic tends to lead to further broken logic, glad to see you play the game so well.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You must worry about how much piss comes out before you unzip your pants.
Will you get to the toilet in time? Will the door be locked, or will there be a line?
More music, fewer hits
for now figure out how to cure cancer before worrying about the big picture
Why would you want to waste time on that? Nothing you or anyone else ever does will save a single life, only postpone that death. Everybody dies, and in fact cancer is an example of the sort of problems that emerge when you solve the easy problems - keep hostile organisms from killing the body and eventually it breaks down on it's own. Entropy always wins, every scientist knows that. The interesting thing is what we do with whatever time we have. And in fact entropy *helps* with that - new things cannot grow where the old refuse to make room.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Can anyone explain why this result doesn't contradict this one?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/06/137634397/physicists-almost-certain-the-universe-is-not-a-hologram
Are we talking about different things here?
Well Plato in new clothes....... So Something new, Something borrowed, And then comes Something blue (should I be looking for The TARDIS then:)))
That's mostly what physicists do these days. Create interesting but unproven, and sometimes unprovable, conjectures. At least the fundamental physicists. "The math is not inconsistent" is all it takes to stir them up.
Tough to get excited about this stuff if you're not a physicist.
Considering the phrase "just do it" in the GP shouldn't that be Swoosh (tm)!
Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish.
And that will convince me, scientifically, that the universe can't possibly be a simulation? Why has no-one picked up a Nobel prize for physics for this yet?! Oh, yeah, maybe because it's not true. Don't believe me? Go read War and Peace from start to finish, it's all in there.
That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible.
They're inventing theories to make their theories possible? What does that mean?
They're following someone else's theory's implications and have narrowed the gaps where discrepancies may have hidden. It's not proof, but it is an interesting indication that puts the theory on a more solid footing.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense
Finding something that someone says absurd doesn't make it a reductio ad absurdum . I'm not sure what I'm meant to have reductio'd from, and my claim about the FSM isn't absurd. Unlikely, yes, but not - in the sense inherent in the definition of reductio ad absurdum - absurd. That's the whole point of such arguments - they're unfalsifiable.
for hypothetical theories
What's a "hypothetical theory"? They're just theories. This particular one is currently unfalsified, at least by any scientific measure. Is that what you meant?
that people claim are factual.
I'm not claiming the universe is a hologram. The writers of these papers aren't claiming the universe is a hologram. They're just showing that the idea is more consistent with observation than it was previously understood to be.
You are explicitly claiming the universe isn't a hologram, though. I'm asking for scientific, not philosophical, evidence to back up your claim. What observations of the universe can you cite which disprove the holographic theory?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
. . . the universe is written in its own language, CU (Common Universe).
You must be a fundamentalist Christian Republican or something. Regardless: You're the cancer that's killing sentience in humans.
I'll just ignore the bar tabs in Hong Kong, Singapore, London and San Francisco and the ex-wives attorneys in more places that I have time to pound on the keyboard.
Cheers
Hologram is a reference to a familiar system designed to make a very abstract, difficult to understand idea more accessible to laypeople. This is something called an analogy. You may find that many people who study things will use these so-called analogies in order to make concepts in their field understandable to outsiders who don't understand the details of the underlying theories.
Hint: GR theorists don't actually think we're ants on a balloon when they give the ant-on-a-balloon analogy for the expansion of space, quantum physicists don't actually put cats in boxes with poison gas, and biologists don't actually think proteins are cute little interlocking polyhedrons.
How's your math? Have you looked at it or read the papers? Or did you just figure "that's bullshit" based on an article about it written by someone whose major was English?
Free Martian Whores!
"So you should major in subjects like English, philosophy, psychology, and sociology -- subjects in which nobody really understands what anybody else is talking about, and which involve virtually no actual facts. I attended classes in all these subjects, so I'll give you a quick overview of each:"
"PHILOSOPHY: Basically, this involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch. You should major in philosophy if you plan to take a lot of drugs...."
http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~martine/light/barrycollege.html
Unfortunately, some aspects of physics are starting to sound like Dave Barry's take on Philosophy..
Remember those kooky physicists working on that nuclear stuff rather than on the deadly disease of the day?
Their work is applied to cancer treatment every day now.
Yeah, I read the work. Did you read the work, or just assume that it's pretty cool stuff so has to be factual and "evidence"
Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole (hypothetical), the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe) (hypothetical), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory (hypothetical) as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (hypothetical)
Look, I think fantasy stories are pretty cool myself. When you string a whole lot of hypothetical information together, you get a big old hypothetical result. Not evidence, and not fact. String theory has been discounted over and over and over again, which is why the theory has changed dramatically and drastically every couple of years since it was first mentioned. String theory is not factual, and therefor claiming something is true based on a non-factual piece of data is irrational and illogical.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I got into this discussion too late to be noticed, but I feel the need to help people understand that this theory is *NOT* stating the universe is a simulation. Projections are not simulations.
What the theory suggests is that of all the dimensions we know about (the article mentions 6, which is how many dimensions you get with one flavor of string theory), some of them are illusion. Like a hologram -- a 2D plastic or glass toy that displays a 3D image. The universe does not contain 6 dimensions; it contains a smaller number, and the rest of the dimensions only appear to be there.
It's likely that the universe contains at least three dimensions, because we would have noticed non-isomorphic behavior in space. But the jury is still out on whether the fourth dimension -- Time -- is an illusion. The same goes for the fifth and sixth dimensions.
None of this says anything about the universe being simulated. That's a philosophical question that physics will probably never be able to answer.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Heeey Macarena!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlzwuFkn88U
Actually, current thinking is that it is stored on the surface of an N-sphere.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
Claiming I need more than observable measurable science is idiocy, especially when you are defending a theory that is based on at least 5 different hypothesis.
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven. String has it's purposes, but it's not factual and not provable which is why there are so many "string theories" being touted as "the answer to everything" (and none of them have been).
Nobel used to mean something to academics. Obama receiving the Nobel Prize has been the icing on the cake to show that it is not about academia, but about money, labels, and sucking up.
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument. Numerous Physicists and Mathematicians discount string theory because it does not work. Claiming that I need "scientific evidence" not philosophical evidence to discount a theoretical work (based solely on unproven theory and models) is further absurdity. They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual. That didn't even touch on your existentialism comment which was absolutely absurdity.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The fixation on "best" accepted theory is more about hubris than insight.
The Kolmogorov/Chaitin view is that you should believe every statement about the universe that you can't formally disprove—all at the same time— using an exponentially weighted average based on the minimum description length of each viable description (baroque theories with billions of epicycles are down-weighted by k^-1e9, where k is the mean entropy of your typical epicycle). I don't really know the math, so take that with a grain of salt, but it's at least the general idea.
The standard model is extremely cogent and concise. It will exponentially outweigh practically everything else.
The only reason this isn't used is that we pretty much never know the minimum description length for anything (there's a result where something akin to minimum description is length is formally proven to be the hardest computation definable), and we can't take the exponentially-weighted integral of all as-yet undisproven theories by any convenient method.
Any undisproven theory that comes along with the potential to be formulated as cogently (or nearly so) as the standard model should be regarded as valid until proven otherwise (either false, or irredeemably baroque).
There's no sane reason to impose incumbency politics on theory. Theory is not a vote.
But a hologram isn't a real 3D image is it? It realies on the way our eyes see and our brains process images to create an image we perceive as three dimensional, but that takes place between our ears. So I'm assuming this 'hologram' stuff is really just an analogy and I'm none the wiser, really.
All...frozen...
Based on pic in the article, the universe is One Big Goatse
Table-ized A.I.
The opposite is actually true. Quantum mechanics was born to explain experiments other theories could not. Please read about photoelectric effect here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
...
Cursor! I need a car that'll make chicks wet.
What? No. Not a fire engine!
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere.
It's pretty solid as proof goes, but it's not utterly irrefutable. Once the probes left the atmosphere the data could have been faked by a higher power. Or perhaps the solar system is real but everything outside is not. Anyway, that's a moot point because it's not the theory under discussion .
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven.
I haven't claimed any such thing! Why do you keep insisting that I'm claiming any of this is true?
String has it's purposes, but it's not factual
First you claim the universe does exist, then you claim string doesn't?! Hah, only kidding. You meant string theory. In which case, my response is: how do you know it's not factual?
and not provable
Not proven. Not easily falsifiable either, as I understand the current state of affairs. But they're working on it, and who's to say they won't succeed?
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument.
I haven't claimed that either! Please try and read my posts fully before you reply - I've tried to show you the same courtesy.
They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual.
They've provided plenty of facts in the form of mathematical demonstrations of the consistency of certain aspects of the theory.
Of course I'm treating their work as factual. They did actually do the work. What I assume you mean is I'm treating the theory as being factual, but I am doing nothing of the sort and have said so on more than one occasion.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So Zelazny was right after all.
Too bad that our universe is neither AdS (the cosmological constant is positive) nor ten-dimensional as in the papers.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
GAGUT probably already got there and these guys are just pussies after the fact.
Hologram
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
You're an idiot.
The fact that a simulation inside the hologram is showing htat we're in a hologram cannot be denied. I need to change my religious beliefs to something different quick...
So concluding the universe is a hologram puts string theory on a "solid footing"? All it shows me is that string theorist are all high, or we need a new definition of "hologram".
This recent work basically suggests that the theory might be true.
Are you sure? It seems more to me like it suggests that the theory might not be false. Lots of models look accurate right up until they don't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Save your electrons. The guy's a big-headed nutter drowning in hubris. If the senior architect himself doesn't think something's true, then nothing on the face of this planet will change his mind.
> You do realize that quantum mechanics were met with similar derision? Heck, Einstein never really accepted the notion, and that's as great a scientist as we've ever had
And you could add, "and he had a better understanding of quantum mechanic than most of the scientists" cue EPR paradox, how many scientists who accepted QM understood that QM was non local?
I would like to remind people of that one lame superstring theory. It was a joke at college parties... analyzed the book standing up in a library, almost pee'd my pants in the 'science' section. It took forever for the NASA PR guy to come out and remind folks that engineers don't buy fake books, that which remotely stirs interest in theoretical math. Some idiot-savant in a wheelchair comes out and backs something up, do you buy the book?
File under: How to turn science into religion
"at least compelling evidence that Maldacena's conjecture is true."
Isn't science about theories? Theory of relativity, etc. Newton's Laws turned out not to be the law but its still remains a good theory with limitations.
It is close to asking: do you believe in evolution? I don't believe in anything. Beliefs are for religions. I think the theory of evolution is the best theory to date. If a better theory comes along with better evidence and support I would change my mind.
As I understand this post, not the universe is a hologram. Just the string-theory-based description of it can be interpreted as a description of a hologram. This opens the way for an alternative description of the universe as the reality whose hologram-like description is what we understand of it. Unfortunately the original articles are beyond my grasp ...
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle [wikipedia.org] is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There is no logical claim that the Nth dimension is real, it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us. It's like flat earth all over again, and pitched as this thing that all smart should believe in. Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working. They don't rely on magical dark energy or magical dark matter (not to be confused with heavy elements) either.
When you treat a string of theories as factual, it shows that you are either very ignorant or easily manipulated. You show me proof of a 5th dimension, and I'll change my tune. Until then, when you have a theory that claims XY is true and therefor Y is true while Y is an unproven highly controversial theory you have no proof and no fact. Read the work, and this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted." If you don't see the circular logic issue with their work, you are blind.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You have factually proven that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.. dimensions of string theory exist? Hallelujah! String theory is now proven and we can all go home! Fire all of the physicists guys, we don't need them any more!
Oh wait, that never happened. So me questioning the theory based on logical points is "hubris" and I'm a "nutter". What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven? Less intelligent than a turnip, far too ignorant for hubris, and challenged beyond being a nutter?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is the use of the term "hologram" designed to imply that an n-dimensional function can describe an (n+m)-dimensional object? The (n+m) dimensional object being a perceptual illusion similar to a hologram?
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
However, AdS/CFT tells us nothing about our universe, since we know that the type of string theories it talks about can't describe our universe.
Is that because AdS corresponds to a negative cosmological constant, and as far as we can tell the cosmological constant is positive?
This has always confused me. Why are they working in AdS at all? I figured it was because the math was easier, and they were hoping to reach a point where they understood it well enough to flip around the sign of the constant and get the "real universe" back. Or... maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I apologize if what I just said was gibberish.
...but at least at the bottom, at the gravity-less flat cosmos where a turtle can go about its business without a care in the...universe
QM was, and is, the only game in town for why electrons can continuously orbit nuclei, in particular states with well-defined transitions. Atomic spectra were discovered in the 18th century.
QM is the only game in town for providing cutoffs for the blackbody spectrum. The photon was first introduced in the 19th century by Boltzmann for this purpose.
Thompson found electrons at the end of the 19th century. 20 years later Bohr determined how atoms work.
Of course, today, we emphasize the symmetry of the hydrogen atom and the representations of its Lie algebra. Weyl was the one who introduced Lie groups to physicists. But, that's not really where QM came from.
philosophy is useful to science because it gives people who are reasonably clever but uncreative and careerist a place to have their careers where they will not get in anyone's way
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working.
Numerous alchemists spent years "working on" turning lead into gold and got nowhere.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
When you treat a string of theories as factual
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
Read the work
You first.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
No, it isn't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So me questioning the theory based on logical points
You're not questioning it, you're dismissing it. And you haven't presented any logical points, you've only claimed that such points exist (in a round-about sort of way).
What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven?
The GP said no such thing. What is your problem with comprehending the written word?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Seems like we are in more agreement than originally perceived.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
That was what I originally claimed, and why I claimed that this study was not factual or "evidence" as it was posted in TFA. Your argument was that this is evidence and fact originally, and that I was not a Nobel recipient so could not argue that it was all theory or against the theory.
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
There was no being obtuse, we stated the same thing with different extremes. Numerous versions of String Theory have been discarded, and what we have today is yet another modification trying to make it work. Claiming it's fact is wrong. Having an opinion that it shows promise or failure leads to rational discourse. Seems like we have moved in our dialogue more toward rational discourse so far.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
It's unfair of the physicists and journal to sensationalize the theory as "evidence" and just as unfair for people to claim it's factual.
Look, I think string theory is very interesting. It's made us look at things in ways we never thought to look for before. For example just last week, a nice paper was delivered discussing how Einstein's theories and Quantum entanglement were not out of line. It's a great theory from that regard.
That said, when we look at our influence on particle beams we have two schools of thought for the solution. One, is that we have N dimensions, or alternatively we have another energy that we are not accounting for. The latter is a very rational area to pursue based on sound scientific principles. The first has become a math problem which goes further and further in trying to prove N dimensions. It's some nifty math, but it does not match our observable universe. The nifty math has shown that we can't yet account for everything, but it has not proven that we have N dimensions.
And yes, these pieces of physics do represent our observable universe better than string theory. We can repeat results without tweaking theories and models. Where as String theory has been a constant stream of tweaking both input models and the theory.
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
And visa-verse. If you treat the theory as true you are not acting scientifically. My reaction and comments would be very different if people didn't make claims like "Evidence that the Universe is a Holographic representation", or "String theory is true" and "In our N dimensional Universe". Not that you stated all of those things, but you come close to a couple and at least implied that nobody could question the theory.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
No, it isn't.
I quoted the article to a different person below, perhaps you should give it another read.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
My understanding of this theory is that the information about the universe is not encoded on the boundary of the universe (i.e. black hole boundaries) right now, but it is encoded on the boundary of the universe over all time, i.e. the boundaries of black holes for all times plus Big Bang plus maybe the Big Crunch if there is one. This means that if we had perfect information about all of these three boundaries of the universe (for all time, for the first) then we'd also know what happens inside the universe for all time.
While this has a lot of theoretical interest, I'm not sure why it means that the universe is a hologram or anything like that.
All 3D holograms can be stored in two dimensions. Stop "debunking" science you do not even begin to grasp the faintest notion of.
Wrong. You cannot collapse a dimension without losing information.
You either force a single perspective, meaning your resulting "projection" is not truly n+1 dimensional, or you store multiple copies from multiple perspectives, thus losing all other perspectives not stored. 2 perspectives (2 copies stored in 2D) gets you a resolution of 2 in the 3D plane, 100 gets you a resolution of 100. No matter how high you go, you've traded a continuous dimension for discrete steps.
Actually, current thinking is that it is stored on the surface of an N-sphere.
Thinking by who? Show me one fuck who thinks this, and I'll show you some jackass in Academia who likes palpating their own genitals and calling it research.
Then get along and show me some fucking evidence that this wacky shit is true. There is exactly as much evidence to support the theory that the entire universe we see is actually just a mote of dust floating around some alien's underwear after ripping a hot dry fart.
Ooooooooooh, you CUSSED!
You should watch that farting, you;'ll dry rot your underoos.
Astro physicists have been complaining that there's an enormous part of the universe that should exist but they can't find, and this for ages. Now they're claiming it's a hologam? As far as I know a hologram has no mass. So there's no real universe at all. Instead of missing around 90% of it's mass, now it's missing 100%?
But I think I exist, and if I think, I am. No,
The outcome of 2012 nobel prize in Physics Genetic hologram -Survival of Jesus Christ from negative mirror of Genetic Hologram
Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar Nandakumar
9:07 AM (0 minutes ago)
to astro
The outcome of 2012 nobel prize in Physics Genetic hologram -Survival of Jesus Christ from negative mirror of Genetic Hologram
Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar Nandakumar
8:49 AM (0 minutes ago)
to rld, Hubble, s.w.hawking, Steve, science
In physics, the ‘holographic principle’ is a property described in string theory. It represents a volume of space whose entire information can be imagined as encoded on a boundary of that selected space. The holographic principle started by first observing black hole thermodynamics. There, it was noticed that the informational content of all the objects that got sucked in by the hole can be seen in a scaled sense on the hole’s event Serge Haroche is a professor at the Collège de France and Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. He shared the 8m-kronor prize with David J Wineland of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, Boulder. The citation from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said they won "for groundbreaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems" through reflective mirrors.But their works require further production of genetic hologram the transfer dynamics from negative mirror to positive mirror.
Though it may look strange the outcome seems to be two positive and negative mirrors of human body that one survives even after death.The negative genetic mirror is always operative bring out the human bodty in full form in the form of genetic hologram.The Nobel laureates have seeded the point of rebirth even after death unknowingly.
When two particles interact, they become "entangled," which means one particle affects the other at a distance. The connection lasts long after they are separated. Quantum mechanics predicts the bizarrest things. Tiny particles like electrons can simultaneously be in two places, or, more generally, in two states that would seem mutually exclusive in our everyday experience of physics. Similarly weirdly, particles that have once interacted can remain entangled even when they're moved far apart and then influence each other instantaneously, something which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". These seemingly magical properties could be exploited for exciting real-world applications, if it wasn't for another strange consequence of quantum mechanics: that by simply looking at a quantum system you destroy many of its properties sound a way of trapping individual photons (particles of light) for a record-breaking amount of time. Using extremely reflective mirrors which bounce the photons back and forth,
The real genetic hologram was that of Jesus Christ after his survival after death.
Sankaravelyudhan Nandakumar,Astrogeneticist,Oxford and Cambridge astro,Hubble research Scholar
Out come of Nobel prize 2012
The Nobel prize for physics 2012 has been awarded to two scientists who worked out a way to trap, manipulate and study the fundamental particles of light and matter without destroying them. Their work is a crucial step towards building superfast quantum computers and could lead to ways of measuring time with a hundred times greater precision than is possible using atomic clocks.
When two particles interact, they become "entangled," which means one particle affects the other at a distance. The connection lasts long after they are separated. Quantum mechanics predicts the bizarrest things. Tiny particles like electrons can simultaneously be in two places, or, more generally, in two states that would seem mutually exclusive in our everyday experience of physics. Similarly weirdly, particles that have once interacted can remain entangled even when they're moved far apart and then influence each other instantaneously, something which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". These seemingly magical properties could be exploited for exciting real-world applications, if it wasn't for another strange consequence of quantum mechanics: that by simply looking at a quantum system you destroy many of its properties sound a way of trapping individual photons (particles of light) for a record-breaking amount of time. Using extremely reflective mirrors which bounce the photons back and forth,
Quantum mechanics operates, particles of matter can exist in multiple states—such as "on" and "off" to reference the binary process by which digital computing operates—at the same time. We may not be able to comprehend what this means outside of mathematics, but scientists have theorized for several decades that harnessing these properties for computing would be a natural way past the issues that loom for today's nanoscale silicon-based transistors, which are running up against atomic-level barriers to functionality the smaller they get. Today's computers use a binary code, in which data is stored in a bit that could be either zero or 1.
Entanglement is a state where the state of two quantum particles (photons, for example) are intrinsically and absolutely linked. Quantum particles, due a principle called quantum superposition, exist in every theoretically possible state at the same time. A photon, for example, spins horizontally and vertically (different polarizations) at the same time. When you measure a quantum particle, though, it fixes on a single state. With entanglement, when you measure one half of the entangled pair, the other half instantly assumes the exact opposite state. If you measure one photon and it’s vertically polarized, its entangled sibling will be horizontally polarized.
But in superposition, a quantum bit, known as a qubit, could be either zero or one, or both zero and one at the same time.This potentially offers a massive increase in data storage, greatly helping number-crunching tasks such as running climate-change models and breaking encrypted codes.
They also allowed him to use quantum entanglement to trace how a quantum system changes from a state of superposition — being in two states at once — to the state of definite existence
As we’ve covered before, entanglement seems to occur instantly, even if the particles are on opposite ends of the universe. This experiment shows how entanglement exists through time, as well as space — or, in scientific terms, the non-locality of quantum mechanics in spacetime
The weird way entangled particles stay connected even when separated by large distances — a phenomenon Albert Einstein called "spooky" — has been confirmed once again, this time with a key loophole in the experiment eliminated.
The results from the new experiment confirm one of the wildest predictions of quantum mechanics: that a pair of "entangled" particles, once measured, can somehow instantly communicate with each other so that their states always match.
The implications were that individual ent
Yes, and the other key point is that if you break that souvenir, the image is contained in every single piece. Once you get your head wrapped around that, the holographic theory of the Universe starts to make a little more sense.
Murphy was an optimist