There Is Growing Evidence that Our Universe Is a Giant Hologram

[Wilikon]

If a friend told you that we were all living in a giant hologram, you’d probably tell him to lay off the kush. But incredibly, physicists across the world are thinking the same thing: That what we perceive to be a three-dimensional universe might just be the image of a two-dimensional one, projected across a massive cosmic horizon.

Yes, it sounds more than a little insane. The 3D nature of our world is as fundamental to our sense of reality as the fact that time runs forward. And yet some researchers believe that contradictions between Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics might be reconciled if every three-dimensional object we know and cherish is a projection of tiny, subatomic bytes of information stored in a two-dimensional Flatland.

“If this is true, it’s a really important insight,” Daniel Grumiller, a theoretical physicist at the Vienna University of Technology, told me over the phone. Grumiller, along with physicists Max Riegler, Arjun Bagchi and Rudranil Basu, recently published the very first study offering evidence that the so-called “holographic principle”—that certain 3D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2D projections—might describe our universe.


“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

The holographic principle was first postulated over 20 years ago as a possible solution to Stephen Hawking’s famous “information paradox.” (The paradox is essentially that black holes appear to swallow information, which, according to quantum theory, is impossible.) But while the principle was never mathematically formalized for black holes, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena demonstrated several years later that holography did indeed hold for a theoretical type of space called anti-de Sitter space. Unlike the space in our universe, which is relatively flat on cosmic scales, anti-de Sitter space as described by mathematicians curves inward like a saddle.


“Anti-de Sitter space is not directly relevant to our universe, but it allows us to perform calculations that would otherwise be very difficult if not impossible,” Grumiller said.

Within this theoretical space, Maldacena showed that two sets of physical equations mapped perfectly onto each other: The equations of gravitational theory, and those of quantum field theory. This correspondence was totally unexpected, because while gravity is described in three spatial dimensions, quantum field theory requires only two. That the laws of physics produced identical results two or three dimensions pointed to anti-de Sitter-space’s holographic nature.
“This was the first instance where somebody explicitly showed how holography works,” Grumiller told me. “But given that our universe is not anti-de Sitter space—it’s approximately flat at large scales—it’s interesting to ask whether the holographic principle applies to flat space, as well.”



http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram?utm_source=vicefbus

[BADecker]

So, where are and what are the hologram projectors that project this hologram universe of ours?

[BADecker]

“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

Not so! It has been known for many decades that time is the dimension that allows objects in space to hold different positions. Of course, this might mean that all objects in space hold every position in space, and it is only "time" that makes them act like they only hold certain positions at certain "times."

[Wilikon]

“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

Not so! It has been known for many decades that time is the dimension that allows objects in space to hold different positions. Of course, this might mean that all objects in space hold every position in space, and it is only "time" that makes them act like they only hold certain positions at certain "times."

I had a vision (yes, a vision) one time that there is only one instance of each of the smallest element in the universe. What we perceive as time and space is each particle stretching "infinitely" like a spaghetto... When a bunch get gobbled up together that creates packets we define as atoms. There is no such thing as "emptiness" in space... Only places where spaghetti are stretching solo, not around other spaghetti near by. It would be like looking at a little crystal inside a kaleidoscope. Multiple instances of the same structure but with an infinite amount of shapes, based on the perspective of the observer, thus creating reality, as far as the perspective of the observer. What we would observe as a particle entanglement is simply plucking the same string and see it reacting just like ...

And. No. For that vision. I don't do drugs...

 

 

[BADecker]

“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

Not so! It has been known for many decades that time is the dimension that allows objects in space to hold different positions. Of course, this might mean that all objects in space hold every position in space, and it is only "time" that makes them act like they only hold certain positions at certain "times."

I had a vision (yes, a vision) one time that there is only one instance of each of the smallest element in the universe. What we perceive as time and space is each particle stretching "infinitely" like a spaghetto... When a bunch get gobbled up together that creates packets we define as atoms. There is no such thing as "emptiness" in space... Only places where spaghetti are stretching solo, not around other spaghetti near by. It would be like looking at a little crystal inside a kaleidoscope. Multiple instances of the same structure but with an infinite amount of shapes, based on the perspective of the observer, thus creating reality, as far as the perspective of the observer. What we would observe as a particle entanglement is simply plucking the same string and see it reacting just like ...

And. No. For that vision. I don't do drugs...

 

 

Remember what Hawking called the Higgs Boson? The god particle.

Bible says God is One. What if there is really only 1 particle in the whole universe, and it simply zooms throughout the whole universe, through all the dimensions (actually making them as it zooms), very rapidly, taking on different qualities depending on what it "wants" to accomplish at a particular "junction."



EDIT: This might explain why the Higgs Boson is so elusive. It doesn't take on the Higgs Boson form except when it wants, and at the proper "junction."

[Wilikon]

“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

Not so! It has been known for many decades that time is the dimension that allows objects in space to hold different positions. Of course, this might mean that all objects in space hold every position in space, and it is only "time" that makes them act like they only hold certain positions at certain "times."

I had a vision (yes, a vision) one time that there is only one instance of each of the smallest element in the universe. What we perceive as time and space is each particle stretching "infinitely" like a spaghetto... When a bunch get gobbled up together that creates packets we define as atoms. There is no such thing as "emptiness" in space... Only places where spaghetti are stretching solo, not around other spaghetti near by. It would be like looking at a little crystal inside a kaleidoscope. Multiple instances of the same structure but with an infinite amount of shapes, based on the perspective of the observer, thus creating reality, as far as the perspective of the observer. What we would observe as a particle entanglement is simply plucking the same string and see it reacting just like ...

And. No. For that vision. I don't do drugs...

 

 

Remember what Hawking called the Higgs Boson? The god particle.

Bible says God is One. What if there is really only 1 particle in the whole universe, and it simply zooms throughout the whole universe, through all the dimensions (actually making them as it zooms), very rapidly, taking on different qualities depending on what it "wants" to accomplish at a particular "junction."

If that one particle defines everything then it would not matter how fast or how slow that particle zooms around to create every shapes and states in the universe, as even what we observe and feel as space and time would be defined by that particle.

 

[Beliathon]

There is growing evidence that OP sucks at reason and science.

[Vod]

There is growing evidence that OP sucks at reason and science.

vs. the guy (BADecker) that is claiming a 600 year old man took 17,000,000 animals onto a giant ship for 400 days with no food or water?  Yep - the bible says so, so it must be true...

You think the OP is the nut job?  

[BADecker]

“If you asked anyone twenty years ago how many dimensions our world has, most of us would answer 'three spatial dimensions plus time,'" he said. "The holographic principle would mean that this is actually a matter of perspective.”

Not so! It has been known for many decades that time is the dimension that allows objects in space to hold different positions. Of course, this might mean that all objects in space hold every position in space, and it is only "time" that makes them act like they only hold certain positions at certain "times."

I had a vision (yes, a vision) one time that there is only one instance of each of the smallest element in the universe. What we perceive as time and space is each particle stretching "infinitely" like a spaghetto... When a bunch get gobbled up together that creates packets we define as atoms. There is no such thing as "emptiness" in space... Only places where spaghetti are stretching solo, not around other spaghetti near by. It would be like looking at a little crystal inside a kaleidoscope. Multiple instances of the same structure but with an infinite amount of shapes, based on the perspective of the observer, thus creating reality, as far as the perspective of the observer. What we would observe as a particle entanglement is simply plucking the same string and see it reacting just like ...

And. No. For that vision. I don't do drugs...

 

 

Remember what Hawking called the Higgs Boson? The god particle.

Bible says God is One. What if there is really only 1 particle in the whole universe, and it simply zooms throughout the whole universe, through all the dimensions (actually making them as it zooms), very rapidly, taking on different qualities depending on what it "wants" to accomplish at a particular "junction."

If that one particle defines everything then it would not matter how fast or how slow that particle zooms around to create every shapes and states in the universe, as even what we observe and feel as space and time would be defined by that particle.

 

I don't disagree with you. Yet, how in the world could we experience anything except what "It" wanted us to experience. This might mean that nothing that we experience makes any sense at all except in the ways that they "seems" to make sense... as dictated by the god particle.

[BADecker]

There is growing evidence that OP sucks at reason and science.

Come on. Give him a break. His stuff stimulates the imagination and ideas in all of us. If we didn't have such stimulation, we'd still be living in the stone age.

[Wilikon]

There is growing evidence that OP sucks at reason and science.

Totally True! Well observed!

 

[BADecker]

There is growing evidence that OP sucks at reason and science.

vs. the guy (BADecker) that is claiming a 600 year old man took 17,000,000 animals onto a giant ship for 400 days with no food or water?  Yep - the bible says so, so it must be true...

You think the OP is the nut job?  

You are wrong. It was more. The other place in the Bible says "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate..."

When it says "seven" and "two" it means "seven pair" and "two pair."

[LazerSMS]

and I have enough evidence that Vice's "news" are infotainment and nothing more

[BlitzandBitz]

How can they prove this though?

[Wilikon]

How can they prove this though?

With this...




...But you need to read the article to know what it does...

 

[username18333]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

Quantum mechanics can (at least, to present knowledge) accurately describe the universe without the supplementation of “Einstein’s theory of relativity” (Stone).

[blablahblah]

I don't see in 3d, I see a pair of flat images, and in my imagination I find similarities between the pictures and triangulate them onto a 3d illusion. That 3d space in my mind seems non-linear, with maximum accuracy near my body (or where I imagine it to be), and flattening out asymptotically with increasing distance. The usual "2d" description of flat images doesn't make sense either because they have more than just 2 orthogonal properties. For instance, colour and brightness can differ independently from each other, and they can also change independently.

What do they mean by holographic? That sounds a bit like that annoying "simulated universe" sound-bite that is also on high rotation. I guess "paradigm" was overused.

[Wilikon]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

Quantum mechanics can (at least, to present knowledge) accurately describe the universe without the supplementation of “Einstein’s theory of relativity” (Stone).

There is no such thing as a theory of everything as of yet. Quantum mechanics describe only a part of reality...

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150409-can-science-ever-explain-everything

[interlagos]

It seems that holographic principle might have something to do with the fact that position of an object is a result of its vibrational make-up. In that sense, every object is omni-present, but only appears to be in a particular position. The same way any function (even those bounded in space, like wavelets) can be represented as a Fourier series consisting only of simple sine waves stretching towards infinity in both directions.

Who knows, maybe one day we will have teleporting capabilities by simply changing location variables of the object.
Hopefully something a bit more advanced than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axhw-3oFcIk

[username18333]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

Quantum mechanics can (at least, to present knowledge) accurately describe the universe without the supplementation of “Einstein’s theory of relativity” (Stone).

There is no such thing as a theory of everything as of yet. Quantum mechanics describe only a part of reality...

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150409-can-science-ever-explain-everything

My source is more authoritative. (I quoted an academic article; you referenced a news article.)