Slashdot Mirror
Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe
New submitter citpyrc sends this news from the Vienna University of Technology: The "holographic principle" asserts that a mathematical description of the universe actually requires one fewer dimension than it seems. What we perceive as three dimensional may just be the image of two dimensional processes on a huge cosmic horizon. Up until now, this principle has only been studied in exotic spaces with negative curvature. This is interesting from a theoretical point of view, but such spaces are quite different from the space in our own universe. Results obtained by scientists at Vienna (abstract) now suggest that the holographic principle even holds in a flat spacetime, like ours.
I am pretty sure they have 3 dimensions.
Ace Rimmer. What a Guy!
The holographic universe theory has been around for at least 25+ years
When you have famous astronomers and people such as
* "The stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" - Astronomer Arthur Eddington
* "... our brains mathematically construct hard reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension transcending time and space. The brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe." - Cyberneticist David Foster
* "Today there is a wide measure of agreement... that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" - Astronomer James Jeans
saying the universe appears to function like a holographic mind then I find ANY sort of calculations that can give credence to this theory is definitely interesting.
I feel much thinner now!
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Astrophysicists have excellent limits on the amount perception for 3D for 2D universal dimensions, at least as the story goes. We've got an excellent idea what is out there based on emission in the far infrared, interstellar scintillation, absorption line studies, reddening studies, etc. We have very good limits on the 3d cloud density, too, from comet statistics. There are even a number of direct observations based on microlensing surveys, and there's a shadow survey, too, looking at large star fields. In short, we've got pretty good numbers and we're not going to discover that there's either a 3D or 2D universe.
Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension, if you accept some lossy-ness or fuzziness. Imagine a string of digits and codes with the structure: x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type, etc... Where x, y, and z are coordinates in 3D space and "type" is the type of particle. Example single particle encoding: "3629342.3442, 4872042.3987, 193203.0482, Electron". There may need to be more "state" info about a given particle to make it workable, but you get the general idea.
Table-ized A.I.
"Honey, does this projection make my ass look 4D?"
Table-ized A.I.
We present the analytical calculation of entanglement entropy for a class of two-dimensional field theories governed by the symmetries of the Galilean conformal algebra, thus providing a rare example of such an exact computation.
Bozhe moi!
This I know... from nothing.
What I'm going to do.
I think of great Lobachevsky and I get idea - haha!
(NB: Lobachevsky developed the mathematics of non-Euclidean geometry with negative curvature.)
To most slashdotters it remains only a theory
Table-ized A.I.
I'll be back for Breakfast!
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
holographic universe....... right....
My wife has always said I was two dimensional.
I thought Sheldon gave up on string theory in the 5th season, or was it the 6th.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I love reading about this stuff, but it's hard to understand without a background in science :(
Can someone explain it to us like we're 10?
> I for one don't want to give Physics research a blank check to investigate some unobservable math fantasy.
You mean like String Theory, and Dark Energy ?
>The word "theory" implies that it is testable.
Not to nitpick: but no you are wrong.
A theory is just as it states, a theory. Testing of the theory simply serves to give "weight" to said theory when comparing it to other theories describing the same domain.
An untestable theory might very well be something that is less important to discuss as part of scientific discourse (it has no "weight") but it is still a theory.
The word "theory" implies that it is testable.
In this case it is testable, as there are a couple interferometer based experiments working toward testing it.
But it continues to witlessly push forward on the assumption that the proponents could win the argument (grant money) if it could sell enough books and achieve mainstream popularity.
You don't get a grant for just being popular. You get a grant for proposing to do something, and that something has to both fall under the directives of a particular grant program, and get good reviews about the chances of achieving something and usefulness from other scientists.
I for one don't want to give Physics research a blank check to investigate some unobservable math fantasy.
Like several other new proposed theories in physics, this is not without observation. It is an extension of already seen phenomena and theories. This is in the same way that observations confirming Newtonian mechanics also confirm relativity because it makes the same predictions in the situations tested by older experiments.
The word "theory" implies that it is testable.
"Falsifiable" is a better word here. You don't need to be able to do controlled experiments (tests) in order to have a solid theory - an influx of new observations of the universe as we find it works just as well.
And the holographic principle is certainly falsifiable.
1) It imposes a limit on the amount of entropy in any given volume - find a system which can be in more than the allowed number of states, and isn't inside a black hole, and this theory is dead.
2) It sets a really high value on the entropy of black holes. Black holes become the dominant source of entropy in our universe. This has consequences in cosmology that are fundamental, if the only reason entropy is increasing in our universe is this assigning of entropy to black holes. There are certainly physicists playing with that idea, as it could be career-making, true or false.
3) It has deep implications for the evolution of black holes - how they evaporate. This will be a lot harder to prove (I don't think we'll validate Hawking radiation in my lifetime), but might be possible to falsify by finding a black hole that's clearly not allowed by theory.
Heck, there are implications for particle physics that are still being understood, and lots there is testable now with the LHC. The more and farther you reason from a premise like this, the more likely it is to matter to something easy to measure, or at least possible to measure.
The reason the discovery of the Higgs boson was such a big deal is that it confirmed a bunch of really abstract theory in quantum mechanics that is very, very far from anything we can measure, except at the end of this very long chain of reasoning there's this prediction of this new oddball particle (that there's no other reason to expect - it come from deep in the abstract math of QM, not from anything else we measured). So finding that particle confirms that whole crazy chain of logic. Something similar will eventually happen for the holographic principle.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
God already told us about the 4 corners of the earth
Four corners?
Scientists of Vienna University of Technology pointed out that holographic effects can be demonstrated from flat (two dimensional) surface, and surrounding reality is possibly following the same principles.
Now, if you think about it, that is a reasonable hypothesis, however, it should be noted that the opposite effect can also be realized when four (or five or more) dimensional reality is projected into three dimensional surrounding (let's call it 4D->3D), perceived by humans. Example understandable by humans is the theater of shadows (3D->2D), or three dimensional cathode ray projector, know as tube television (again 3D->2D).
It is always possible to project more dimensions to less. At the same time, 2D->3D Holographic effects allow explanation of some of the known quantum phenomena, such as probability of where the electron will be at anytime as opposed to the earlier teachings that electrons "orbit" around the nucleus of the atom.
Holographic effects also alleviate "understanding" of "spooky action at the distance (quantum entanglement)", but that is where the limits of the quantum teachings, understandable by the commoners end.
All in all, two thousands years ago, in Greece, people were arguing if the world rests on the backs of three elephants or three whales, and assumed that the world is flat.
Our incomplete understanding of surrounding world raises way more questions than we have answers:
1. If currently scientists say that the space is unlimited, perhaps the number of dimensions is also unlimited....
2. Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated and is a scientific fact, the problem is that nobody can prove that all of the particles are not UN-entangled.
3. Why the speed of light is finite, then why quantum entanglement does not care about the distance and is instant.
I truly believe that in the next several decades there will be so many new inventions and experiments related to the quantum world, that our current discussions will resemble discussions will resemble ideas debated by Hellenistic scholars. I just hope that one day a smart individual will be able to explain everything so that we could understand, and find relationships between all the components the same way we understand the relationship between Ohms, Volts and Amperes.
It's all a matter of philosophy. There's been a bit of churning the past few decades, but I prefer this simple differentiation: A theory is a predictive model, an hypothesis is a testable prediction. The utility of a theory is then determined by the success of the hypotheses it generates.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Better would be to say that it is not a scientific theory, I suppose.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Why not? And who exactly is asking for a "blank check"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It would seem that ancient wisdom triumphs and we live in a 2D world.
I'm not an expert, but I thought string theory had dozens of dimensions while the holographic universe has only three (including time)? Looks like a pretty big difference to me.
very funny.
You think you sound a lot smarter than you do.
Nice try though. I always try to encourage the less equip. But since you obviously have trouble using google I have gone and made it nice and easy for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
You will note it proves my case...or not. Either way I am done with this discussion.
Looking at the comment following yours it appears you have some sort of anonymous fool throwing mud at your proposition. Unsurprisingly they offer nothing by way of improvement on your position. I guess it's more fun for a shallow mind to follow mud with mud than attempt a reasoned argument.
I'm sure you're hardly bothered by such idiocy but I wanted to take a moment to point out that in my humble opinion your post provides a beautifully elegant and balanced summary of the scientific method at work. Perhaps it's original; perhaps instead it's ancient and I'm showing myself to be embarrassingly poorly read by failing to recognise its origin. Either way I find it inspirational, thank you.
I chose to reply rather than mod you up because I found your post remarkable and.. well, I guess I needed to remark upon it. Apologies if the points would have been of greater value to you!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Turing was a faggot who resisted his correction therapy and is a terrible example of a scientist.
Yup, all he came up with was those stupid faggot computers that never worked anyway!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I've never understood the rationale behind a holographic universe. I'm not saying it's impossible, but Occam's razor would seem to suggest it's unlikely.
If I understood correctly, the theory goes something like this: Information cannot be destroyed, yet the actions of a black hole on its surroundings (i.e. what we can observe from outside) are completely determined by its twodimensional event horizon, therefore a volume of that size can only contain as much information as what is present on that surface area. Since you can imagine any area of the universe collapsing into a black hole, and again no information can be lost there, the entire universe can only contain as much information as a twodimensional sphere, so the universe really only has two dimensions.
But why is everyone so sure information cannot be "destroyed" (rendered inaccessible) in a black hole? Many laws of physics break down in black holes, what makes you so sure the second law of thermodynamics will hold?
And it's not like this second law is really a "law" in the strictest sense. Mathematicians would never call this a law. It's like people observing a box with red and blue marbles in it. When they shake the box and then look inside, the marbles are all mixed up. Therefore, they introduce the "law" that the marbles will always be mixed up after shaking the box, and it will be impossible for all the blue marbles to be on one side and the red ones on the other.
Now this second law does turn out to be very practical. Because for all intents and purposes, given enough particles, you may reasonably expect to never see a violation of the second law. And certainly on the scale of the universe, it would be... well... "impossible".
But black holes are not like the rest of the universe. Extrapolating the second law, which isn't even really a real law but kind of a quasi-law, to black holes (which we know little about, apart from speculation) and then jumping to the conclusion that this must mean that the whole universe is twodimensional, is just silly. It's people performing "logical deductions" without asking themselves if that particular step actually makes sense.
Also, the fact that we can only see a certain amount of information from outside the black hole, does not mean that more information could not be present inside. What if you drop into the black hole? Of course you wouldn't survive, but if you disregard that detail, couldn't you find all the "lost" information inside? Applied to the universe, this might mean that you could replace a chunk of the universe with a sphere of that size, and you could calculate the effect of that chunk on its surroundings based on that twodimensional sphere, but that doesn't mean the information inside does not exist.
Also, if gravity inside a black hole is so strong that our usual laws of physics break down, it doesn't seem outrageous to assume that information could indeed really be lost there. Why not? Which is more likely? Information getting lost in a singularity, or our threedimensional world being only twodimensional? I would say Occam's razor favors the former.
Information gets lost all the time anyway, in the expanding universe. There are plenty of galaxies that are moving away from us so quickly that we will never be able to see their light. We are "losing" information all the time, yet this doesn't seem to bother anyone.
Really, maybe I'm missing something, and by all means feel free to enlighten me, but I fail to see a compelling reason to assume the universe has only two dimensions, it seems to be an unlikely solution looking for a problem.
What?
E Proelio Veritas.
I have no doubt that the holographic principle is an interesting mathematical representation of certain physical laws. It is no doubt quite useful in solving certain problems and may even be suggestive of new phyisical theories.
However, it's just nonsense to get excited just because you know that the physical laws can be represented in fewer dimensions. OF COURSE THEY CAN. You can always code the information about any functions/distributions/whatever in n dimensional space in fewer dimensions. The holographic principle is just doing it in a way that isn't horribly ugly (probably preserves certain properties that aren't even mentioned in popularizations). In fact it's not at all uncommon for the information about the solution to some (class of) mathematical problems to be fully reflected in the behavior of that solution on some smaller dimensional part.
In short, while this may be quite interesting to the people actually doing the math if you aren't you certainly shouldn't pretend this gives you some deep insight into what the universe is "really" like.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
you don't know anything about logic at all do you? Apparently not.. because it is all latin and I don't see any latin here so you are a moron
Well, looks like I'm the only one who thought this was funny. If it was a bit shorter I'd borrow it for my sig.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So how come if I say "The Theory of creationism" on Slashdot I'll get crucified?
Prefixing "the theory of..." to something does not instantly promote it to the level of a sensible scientific idea.
As an exercise for the reader, look at "the theory of astrology" or "the theory of a flat Earth".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Why not? And who exactly is asking for a "blank check"?
Since we're on the topic, I'd like a blank check!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
So how come if I say "The Theory of creationism" on Slashdot I'll get crucified?
You'll not get crucified as such-- any more, that is only a Christian church punishment. Slashdot has never crucified anyone and physics and bandwidth limitations being what they are, Slashdot will never be able to crucify anyone. Your post will likely be ridiculed, modded down, and mostly ignored. You'll need to go elsewhere for the cross and nails.
The thing is, the "theory of creationism" is an inherently bad theory since it does not lead to hypotheses that can be tested with the scientific method. OTOH, The theory of evolution has produced innumerable hypotheses, some of which were proven wrong while others were shown to be correct, and each of these tests has been fed back into the theory to improve its accuracy of its predictions.
This does not negate the CS Lewis quote from your sig line:
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
Lewis is stating that science is limited to questions of how things work, and cannot be used to address other questions, such as why they work, what purpose does the universe serve, where is the ultimate meaning. For persons who go through life with their eyes open, these are the wonderfully important questions, but they are not amenable to the scientific method.
Will
The brain in the jar being fed false/artificial stimulus has been around for much longer.
However we have no way of testing that you are just a brain in a jar, or an actual person. Because it comes down to what our senses tell us.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Disclaimer: IANAP If an n dimensional space can be explained by an n-1 dimensional projection, can said n-1 dimensional projection be explained by an n-2 dimensional projection? But more importantly... what implications does this have for infinite stacks of turtles?
The holographic universe theory is nothing more than the evolution of existential reality theory. I personally don't believe in it, but then again, I haven't seen any evidence to remotely suggest that the universe operates like a hologram or is constructed like one. I just take it at face value for what I can see and what is tested, known, accepted, validly peer-reviewed scientific method-based knowledge. There is still so much we do not know that I have a hard time wrapping my head around the top down perception of what or how the universe is constructed. I come from a bottom-up approach. Find all the fundamentals and build from that upward.
>The thing is, the "theory of creationism" is an inherently bad theory since ......
It is even worse theology. It requires belief in a deity that created everything to deliberately fool us. Once you go down that road 'died on the cross for my salvation (and yours also if you are interested,)' evaporates. Not having any of that.
Ask your bank. I got a whole book of blank cheques from my bank.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Theory means it can not be proven wrong. If a hypothesis is able to be tested and not proven wrong or inconclusive it is a fact/law not theory. You should all be very open minded in science, unlike religion, science can be proven wrong and it does not diminish the overall value of science in general. Even an idea as wild as a holographic(matrix) universe deserves its chance under the microscope.
Dark energy is an observable effect.
but why is everyone so sure information cannot be "destroyed" (rendered inaccessible) in a black hole?
It was my understanding that all events need to be reversible. If information falling into a blackhole disappears or is otherwise not accessible anymore, then the act of falling into a blackhole is non-reversible. The reason everything needs to be reversible is because time is just a dimension. You can go forward or backwards, but if information is lost, then you can no longer go backwards. This has a lot of ramifications.
You mean Botzmanns Brain, of course. But i think that Boltzmann deviced it to show how proposterous the outcome is. Noone actually thinks it is the truth. If i did then that would mean you (and everyone else) are basically a figment of my own imagination.
Also, i think it is not directly linked to what we now call the holographic principle. That one was thought up by Gerard 't Hooft some decades ago.