Help
" this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...ram.html?page=1
Page 1 of 1
Our Universe is a Hologram
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,594
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-16, 13:47
#2
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2009-January-16, 14:25
Just thinking out loud as someone who has no friggin' clue what the heck this means, I nonetheless have a thought.
If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point."
Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point?
Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static.
If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point."
Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point?
Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-January-16, 14:35
All I know is that holograms are BAD news...
Starfleet should have never installed the damn things.
Just how many times did the damn thing take over Starfleet's flagship?
Starfleet should have never installed the damn things.
Just how many times did the damn thing take over Starfleet's flagship?
Alderaan delenda est
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,937
- Joined: 2004-June-05
Posted 2009-January-16, 14:48
kenrexford, on Jan 16 2009, 03:25 PM, said:
Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point?
And if we measure that one point, will the entire universe cease to exist?
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-16, 15:19
The source, my friends, is the alpha and the omega.
The ultimate "all in" poker bet. You win or you cease to exist.
The ultimate "all in" poker bet. You win or you cease to exist.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,554
- Joined: 2005-April-25
Posted 2009-January-16, 15:45
yes what is remarkable is how the laws of thermodyamics apply to black holes, basically the laws of entropy apply to the horizon limit sizes
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,610
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2009-January-16, 15:45
That was interesting. Thanks for the link, Mike.
A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!).
So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists
But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!).
So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists
But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,554
- Joined: 2005-April-25
Posted 2009-January-16, 15:46
kenrexford, on Jan 16 2009, 03:25 PM, said:
Just thinking out loud as someone who has no friggin' clue what the heck this means, I nonetheless have a thought.
If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point."
Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point?
Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static.
If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point."
Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point?
Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static.
not sure but some of the people in string theory believe there may be up to 24 dimensions....ouch
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 493
- Joined: 2008-July-10
- Location:Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posted 2009-January-16, 16:17
fred, on Jan 16 2009, 04:45 PM, said:
That was interesting. Thanks for the link, Mike.
A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons and by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!).
So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists
But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons and by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!).
So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists
But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Fabric of the Cosmos is the best "introduction to modern physics" book I have read. I also recommend "QED" and "The Character of Physical Law "by Feynman.
Alle Menschen werden bruder.
Where were you while we were getting high?
Where were you while we were getting high?
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,610
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2009-January-16, 16:34
qwery_hi, on Jan 16 2009, 10:17 PM, said:
Fabric of the Cosmos is the best "introduction to modern physics" book I have read. I also recommend "QED" and "The Character of Physical Law "by Feynman.
Thanks for the suggestion. I just ordered QED on Amazon.
Look forward to reading it - I bet Feynman has a sense of humor too
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#11
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,394
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2009-January-16, 17:04
I read "not even wrong" but was quite disappointed by it. Hawkin's books are very well-written but contain to little substance, IMHO. I will check out "the fabric of the cosmos". Thanks for the recommendation!
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#12
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,914
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-16, 17:06
I also just finished reading Fabric of the Cosmos, and recommend it highly; there's a small section that discusses the holographic theory. I never read his Elegant Universe, but I think it was turned into a series of PBS shows (maybe they were "Nova" episodes) that I watched. Greene also seems to be a good speaker, he was even on Letterman once.
However, if you're not into heavy mathematics, avoid anything by Roger Penrose. I started reading The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe a few months ago, but put it down when I was about a third of the way through and he was still teaching all the advanced math that would be necessary to understand the later physics. He may be one of the most brilliant minds in modern physics, but his books are strictly for people in the field.
However, if you're not into heavy mathematics, avoid anything by Roger Penrose. I started reading The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe a few months ago, but put it down when I was about a third of the way through and he was still teaching all the advanced math that would be necessary to understand the later physics. He may be one of the most brilliant minds in modern physics, but his books are strictly for people in the field.
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2009-January-16, 17:10
Will the last person to spontaneously cease to exist please turn out the lights?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#14
- ded
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,459
- Joined: 2005-August-11
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2009-January-16, 21:24
helene_t, on Jan 16 2009, 06:04 PM, said:
I read "not even wrong" but was quite disappointed by it. Hawkin's books are very well-written but contain to little substance, IMHO. I will check out "the fabric of the cosmos". Thanks for the recommendation!
it's amusing to me that the author of this book and Brian Green are (were?) faculty at the same university.
#15
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2009-January-17, 00:01
I didn't underzstand the grained thing, did it mean that space is quantified as energy?
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2009-January-17, 03:41
Quote
not sure but some of the people in string theory believe there may be up to 24 dimensions....ouch
26 really.
Lennard: In what universe?
Sheldon: In all of them, that is the point.
Watch "Big Bang Theory"!
Scene from Big Bang Theory pilot episode
#17
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2009-January-17, 04:14
Fred did you read "A Brief History Of Time" ? Probably an obvious recommendation, but it is still a great book and I think (???) it is not yet outdated.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-17, 09:20
I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1972 (read my Dad's issues for ten years or so before that) and it is an excellent entry point into just about every branch of science.
Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic).
Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic).
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 493
- Joined: 2008-July-10
- Location:Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posted 2009-January-17, 15:02
One really cool thing I liked learning about was the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I think "In search of Schrodingers Cat" has a nice description.
I'd like to read a book about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. Anyone read a good book that touches on this?
I'd like to read a book about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. Anyone read a good book that touches on this?
Alle Menschen werden bruder.
Where were you while we were getting high?
Where were you while we were getting high?
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,554
- Joined: 2005-April-25
Posted 2009-January-17, 18:22
Al_U_Card, on Jan 17 2009, 10:20 AM, said:
I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1972 (read my Dad's issues for ten years or so before that) and it is an excellent entry point into just about every branch of science.
Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic).
Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic).
yes they had an interestisng article on the end of cosmology, that eventually the night sky will be devoid of anything thing but by then we will be long gone
Page 1 of 1