Are We Living In A Hologram? Is The Universe A 2-D Projection On The Cosmic Horizon?

[Judi Lynn]

Are We Living In A Hologram? Is The Universe A 2-D Projection On The Cosmic Horizon?
By News Staff | May 2nd 2015 03:11 PM

There is not the slightest doubt that the the universe is real. It is three-dimensional.

But one popular alternative notion has been the "holographic principle", which asserts that a mathematical description of the universe only requires two dimensions. What we perceive as three dimensional may just be the image of two dimensional processes on a huge cosmic horizon.

Up until now, this speculation has only been mathematically analyzed in exotic spaces with negative curvature. Math, like any language, can talk about lots of things that are not possible and such spaces are quite different from the space in our own universe.

A new paper suggests that the holographic principle even holds in a flat spacetime.



Credit: TU Wien

Read more: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/are_we_living_in_a_hologram_is_the_universe_a_2d_projection_on_the_cosmic_horizon-155134#ixzz3Z3vQbJNJ

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Man, who writes this stuff???

"There is not the slightest doubt that the the universe is real."

First off, this completely meaningless sentence totally disregards the groundbreaking theoretical work done by Lennon and McCartney in "Strawberry Fields Forever". But I digress.

"It is three-dimensional."

Shit, man, ask the String Theorists, and they'll tell you it's 11 dimensional. Or maybe 10.

"But one popular alternative notion has been the "holographic principle", which asserts that a mathematical description of the universe only requires two dimensions."

....wait..... back the train up! You just said there was not the slightest doubt-- how can there be an alternative notion if there isn't the slightest doubt?

[Igel]

2. "Frame of reference."

"Perspective," for humanities majors. Even "voice."

If you're into linguistics, there's underlying form, surface form, logical form. What you're talking about at any given moment requires explicit recognition of the level of representation--and it's been a vexed problem trying to dispose of levels of representation.

You want to see a test with really bad test scores, teach and test tides. You stand on one spot, and the Moon passes overhead. No, wait, you pass under it because it's the Earth that's moving. But at the same time the Moon's orbit advances because it's also orbiting--at least it advances wrt to a stationary point on the Earth. But there's a declination to its orbit, so it doesn't pass overhead in the same spot. But it's really the relative motion that matters--so you pick a spot to consider "stationary" in a system where everything's moving ... even relative to each other.

The students get to sort out how everything moves wrt their location because they've been taught that if it's not immediately relevant to them they can't possibly need or understand it (thanks, 1960s). But they also have to have a frame of reference outside of the Earth's surface to see how everything actually moves and for some, that lack of absolute self-centeredness is a violation of their most deeply held religious beliefs (thanks, 1990s and 2000s).

Some students have trouble keeping two or three relatively recently acquired facts in mind. Static, unchanging facts. Try putting two or three processes, each already a bit difficult for them to get, into those same minds and they melt down.

Then there's the entire "lack of centripetal force" coupled with the Earth's rotation that leads to high tides (for some latitudes) 12 hours later. Oops, 12 hours 25 minutes later. You explain that it's not a "centrifugal force" but inertia, and that inertia's not a force. (Damn it, in my privileged frame of reference there's a force! Ah, but the force is fictitious, even if your frame of reference isn't.)

[AuntPatsy]

4. Worthy ;)

[Judi Lynn]

3. Universe is a hologram? Tool to test holographic principle edges closer

Universe is a hologram? Tool to test holographic principle edges closer
Hannah Osborne
By Hannah Osborne April 27, 2015 18:19 BST

The idea that we are living inside a hologram universe could soon be tested, with scientists saying they have found a way to test the validity of the holographic principle.

The hologram universe theory has been around for decades. It says the universe looks three dimensional to us but, just like a hologram is a 2D object that appears 3D, the same could be happening with the perception of our world.

The holographic principle says a mathematical description of the universe needs one fewer dimension than it appears to.

Until now, though, the principle has just been studied in exotic spaces with negative curvature – spaces far different from those found in our universe. However, scientists from the TU Wien in Vienna now say the theory could work even in a flat spacetime.

Gravitational phenomenon are described in 3D. The behaviour of quantum particles is calculated in a theory with 2D. The results from both can be mapped on to one another. Surprisingly, this method has been found to be very successful and thousands of papers about Juan Maldacena's theory have been published.

Theory v reality

While the holographic principle is important to theoretical physics, it does not seem to have much to do with our own universe. The spaces imagined are negatively curved – any object thrown out would eventually return. In comparison, our universe is quite flat and has a positive curvature.

More:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/universe-hologram-tool-test-holographic-principle-edges-closer-1498591

[hunter]

5. Like string theory, it almost seems to be a kind of recreational math.

The proof is engineering the experiment that demonstrates one's hypothesis, that demonstrates the "model in one's head" has some relationship to "reality."

Intuitively I'm not a fan of holographic universes, but maybe that's because I don't know shit.

My favorite recreation is to model a universe where time is nothing like the mysterious "fourth dimension" of elementary physics. Instead the universe is three dimensional, each identical dimension being 2/3 space-like and 1/3 time-like. The "past" and "present" simply don't exist except as reflections of the ever-present.

But any crackpot such as myself can play these games.

Still it seems to me the well of impractical grand general theories of everything, some of them by mathematically talented and very brilliant people, is as deep as the universe itself.