Holometer experiment to test if the universe is a hologram

Oct 28, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
A conceptual design of Fermilab's holometer. Image credit: symmetry magazine

(PhysOrg.com) -- Many ideas in theoretical physics involve extra dimensions, but the possibility that the universe has only two dimensions could also have surprising implications. The idea is that space on the ultra-small Planck scale is two-dimensional, and the third dimension is inextricably linked with time. If this is the case, then our three-dimensional universe is nothing more than a hologram of a two-dimensional universe.

This idea of the holographic is not new, but physicists at Fermilab are now designing an experiment to test the idea. Fermilab particle astrophysicist Craig Hogan and others are building a holographic , or “holometer,” in an attempt to detect the noise inherent in spacetime, which would reveal the ultimate maximum frequency limit imposed by nature.

As Hogan explains in a recent issue of Fermilab's symmetry magazine, the holometer will be “the most sensitive measurement ever made of spacetime itself.” Hogan and others have already built a one-meter-long prototype of the instrument. They have just begun building the entire 40-meter-long holometer and plan to start collecting data next year.

The holometer consists of two completely separate interferometers positioned on top of one other. In each interferometer, a light beam is split into two different parts that travel in different directions. After bouncing off a mirror, the light beams are brought back together where the difference in their phases is measured. Even the smallest vibration will interfere with the light's frequency during its travels and cause the two light beams to be out of sync.

While interferometers have been used for more than 100 years, the key to the holometer is achieving extreme precision at high frequencies. The scientists say that the holometer will be seven orders of magnitude more precise than any atomic clock in existence over very short time intervals. By having two interferometers, the researchers can compare them to confirm measurements. In addition, the scientists are making sure that any vibration that is detected isn't coming from the holometer itself. They will arrange sensors outside the holometer to detect normal vibrations, and then cancel these vibrations by shaking the mirrors at the same frequency.

After taking these precautions, any detected high-frequency noise could be the jitter of spacetime itself, or “holographic noise.” The noise is expected to have a frequency of a million cycles per second, which is a thousand times higher than what the human ear can hear, noted Fermilab experimental physicist Aaron Chou. If the experiment does find this holographic noise, it would be the first glimpse beyond our three-dimensional illusion and into the universe's true two-dimensional nature at the Planck scale.

Explore further: New study refines biological evolution model

More information: via: symmetry magazine

Related Stories

Researchers could herald a new era in fundamental physics

Feb 03, 2009

Cardiff University researchers who are part of a British-German team searching the depths of space to study gravitational waves, may have stumbled on one of the most important discoveries in physics according to an American ...

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

Feb 03, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

Mar 25, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Usually, we think of spacetime as being four-dimensional, with three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this Euclidean perspective is just one of many possible multi-dimensional ...

The noise about graphene

Oct 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In last week’s announcement of the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences lauded graphene’s "exceptional properties that originate from the remarkable world ...

Recommended for you

New study refines biological evolution model

17 hours ago

Models for the evolution of life are now being developed to try and clarify the long term dynamics of an evolving system of species. Specifically, a recent model proposed by Petri Kärenlampi from the University ...

Production phase for LSST camera sensors nears

18 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A single sensor for the world's largest digital camera detected light making its way through wind, air turbulence, and Earth's atmosphere, successfully converting the light into a glimpse of ...

User comments : 130

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

visual
1.5 / 5 (33) Oct 28, 2010
Oh what an astonishing pile of bullshit.
Anything for the research funds though, I guess.
ClickHere
3.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2010
"The noise is expected to have a frequency of a million cycles per second, which is a thousand times higher than what the human ear can hear, noted Fermilab experimental physicist Aaron Chou."

What?
Taubus
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2010
"The noise is expected to have a frequency of a million cycles per second, which is a thousand times higher than what the human ear can hear, noted Fermilab experimental physicist Aaron Chou."


if you simply calculate it in Hertz, 50 times would be more like it since the upper limit of the human ear is 20 kHz

but that sounds much less impressive ofcourse:P

Ravenrant
4 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2010
BS? Sounds reasonable to me, I was wondering a couple days ago if their was an inherent base frequency to time & space. It also sounds like the Mikelson Morley experiment (whose results don't get NEARLY enough attention) in which case it may not work even if they are right.
Pkunk_
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2010
More Holomoney ?
nuge
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2010
This is not bullshit just because some bloke called visual couldn't be bothered/wasn't able to understand it.

It does seem a bit ridiculous that they are calling it a "holometer" though - it's just two interferometers stuck together. If I stuck two voltmeters together, could I call it an electricitometer? Probably, but I'd sound like a complete tit.
TDK
1 / 5 (30) Oct 28, 2010
Oh what an astonishing pile of bullshit.
Anything for the research funds though, I guess.

You can detect holographic noise with your TV set, because it's formed with cosmic microwave noise - so you can save some bugs...
..any detected high-frequency noise could be the jitter of spacetime itself, or "holographic noise." ..
It would be no problem, as you can always detect such a noise during experiments.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2010
... indeed, but the universe is noising not a have/has be ...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2010
Why didn't they just retrofit LIGO for this? Already built within the expected requirements for tolerance in addition to being underground and away from potential interference.
joefarah
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2010
Next step is to take 2D universe and use 2D holometers to see if the universe is really 1D.
Royale
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
I agree with Skeptic. Can we not re-use equipment, or dual purpose it? Maybe they decided they are simply unable to disturb LIGO as they've been taking measurements continuously for so long now.
Royale
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2010
Is it just me, or did anyone else think "Thirteenth Floor" when they read this?
TDK
1 / 5 (36) Oct 28, 2010
..they are simply unable to disturb LIGO as they've been taking measurements continuously for so long now.
LIGO is filtering out high-frequency noise in an effort to detect gravitational waves. Holometer is filtering out waves and low frequency noise in an effort to detect gravitational noise.

Does it appear crazy for you? Welcome in mainstream physics. These guys are wasting precious money all of us.
dryshrimp
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
So we are existing in the Bubble of Time?
jdbertron
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2010
This show a lack of fundamental understanding of the nature of space time. What will be measured is nothing more than the average upper bound on the frequency of quantum fluctuations. But this doesn't mean it can nail down the upper limit on the dimensions of space. Assuming that space time is like a lattice with forbidden bands is very naive.
Space time doesn't exist outside the interactions between elementary particles, it is defined by them. As long as the assumption is made that they are independent, no theory of everything will ever be found.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2010
... indeed, but the universe is noising not a have/has be ...


Not to mention that he flapped the green umbrella in his fribula. Ipso facto, bananas!
AkiBola
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2010

Is April 1st late this year? That's the biggest pile of horsemanure I've ever read.
Erog
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2010
I think the big problem is the very poor "translation" to layman speak.
"three-dimensional illusion " "holographic universe"
No so good, since most people do not really understand Holograms or what most of the talk about dimensions really mean in this contex.

Having dimensions "folded" and apparent at specific sizes is not new as higher dimensions may be ultra and packed away but exist small like this also.

The trick is having one dimension linked with another and then another. A string of dimensions so linked may make up our current fractional 3+ perceivable environment.

Even gravity may be a manifestation of a "pocket" link dimension.

calling this a Illusion is not quite right . .
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (50) Oct 28, 2010
I agree with Skeptic. Can we not re-use equipment, or dual purpose it? Maybe they decided they are simply unable to disturb LIGO as they've been taking measurements continuously for so long now.

Who's "we"?
TDK
Oct 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2010
Waaaay out of my depth here, but isn't another way to accomplish this to look at the universe at different scales and see if there's some resemblance?

Like a Mandelbrot set looks the same if you zoom in or zoom out doesn't every piece of a broken hologram contain the entire original picture (if somewhat less detailed)?

Or is the analogy just plain stupid?
TDK
1.1 / 5 (30) Oct 28, 2010
Whole contemporary physics is full of such paradoxes, because theorists are separated from reality - so they're predicting the phenomena, which were observed already before many years - they just weren't recognized so.

Actually the whole purpose of this confusion is just to generate another jobs positions for persons involved in both theory, both experiments in similar way, like alchemists of ancient era asked new and new grants for search of Philosopher Stone and/or transmutation of elements into gold..

..Or is the analogy just plain stupid?..
I didn't understand, how Holographic theory is related to Fractal Universe theory in your analogy.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (31) Oct 28, 2010
The search for noise instead of gravitational waves is actually a quite progress, because until now the physicists believed, the deformations of space-time will manifest itself with less or more harmonic waves with frequencies to 10 kHz.

The search for gravitational waves essentially has failed - so now physicists are looking for noise with frequency range in MHz, which is definitely more relevant to dense aether model.

But CMB noise dominates at 50 GHz range - so there is still some space for spending of few billions in research during next years...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
which is definitely more relevant to dense aether model.
Aether is refuted, Michelson-Morley experiments from the late 1800's are apparently confounding you.
http://en.wikiped...periment
Let us know when you catch up to the modern scientific era.
TDK
1.2 / 5 (26) Oct 28, 2010
Why didn't they just retrofit LIGO for this?
Actually LIGO was dedicated for search of gravitational waves in kHz range. It observed some high frequency noise too - but this noise was considered a error signal and as such filtered out from results. So that frequency response of LIGO is not effective at the range of MHz, simply because it was dedicated to work at kHz frequency range and targeted to search for harmonic response, not the noise one - it's simply too large for it.

If you want to observe noise instead of harmonic waves, all shock absorbers, dumpers and filter members in LIGO are not only useless, but even counterproductive here.
TDK
Oct 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (32) Oct 28, 2010
For me it's repeatedly surprising, how willingly the people like S_H are trying to follow the theories, which they don't understand at least a bit - whereas they're actively refuting easy to imagine analogies from their everyday life. It's simply the failure of not only mainstream physics, but the plain common sense of laymans, too.

I don't prohibit the people to study complex abstract theories - but why to ignore the intuitive simple model first? Is the human nature really adjusted into following of ultramundane religion preferentially? From some reason the models, which we don't understand appear more attractive for us, then the others. The human spirit still persist in medieval era, which may become dangerous in certain consequences.
TDK
1.3 / 5 (32) Oct 28, 2010
The holographic theory considers 3D universe as high dimensional projection. Such projection cannot mediate the phenomena occurring with luminal speed, like the photons. So if photons are product of some projection, then the projecting waves must be a much faster, then the photons. Such faster then speed waves cannot appear like waves, but like noise in the same way, like the sound waves appear like noise at the water surface, because they're much faster, then the surface waves. Water surface plays a model of 2D space-time here.

From this reason the superluminal gravitational waves are required in holographic model and in this sense this model contradicts the common interpretations of gravitational waves in general relativity, in which gravitational waves are spreading with luminal speed (albeit Albert Einstein didn't agree with such interpetation from its very beginning).

The ability of theorists to think in clean, conceptual way isn't very strong one - they're rather guessing it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2010
Dense aether theory of Oliver Lodge was never reviewed, refuted the less. You cannot refute something, which you don't know, understand the less. Luminiferous aether was believed to be a sparse gas originally - but such gas cannot mediate energetic light waves, i.e to serve as a "luminiferous" environment.
Aether was merely the medium on which physicists thought light traveled. We know now that light does not require a physical medium through which to travel. Oliver Lodge didn't need to be refuted because there is no aether.

If I developed the "dense phlogiston" theory of energy, no one would look at it, but it would be immediately refuted because the phlogiston was refuted prior.

Stop clinging to lies, Zephir. If the basic component of a physical theory is disproved empirically and rationally, you cannot then build another functional theory on top of it. You must either rework the underlying basis of the theory, or discard it. Time to discard it.
TDK
Oct 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (28) Oct 28, 2010
Actually it's evident, for mainstream physicists is completely irrelevant, whether the fluctuations of space-time curvature are propagating like kHz waves (searched in LIGO) - or like MHz+ noise (searched in "holometer").

They're even not trying to cover, how deeply they're confused with the subject of their research by now. They're just looking how to save their jobs. I'd do the same being at their place.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2010
Layman people cannot be fooled by meritocracy of mainstream physicists anymore.
So you're saying we shouldn't trust people who know what they're talking about because normal people don't understand it.....

Log off please.
TDK
Oct 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TDK
1 / 5 (28) Oct 28, 2010
Actually the holographic noise was detected at GEO600 before few years, when temporal increase of signal noise was observed.

http://www.geo600...ic-noise

Such event corresponds the passage of underwater waves through water surface during underwater nuclear blast - only temporal noise level increasing could be observed here. Of course without second interferometer you have no chance to decide, whether the source of event was not apparatus itself - so you have to build another interferometer, optimized for detection of noise instead of waves.

And this is basically what the "holometer" is about.
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
Waaaay out of my depth here, but isn't another way to accomplish this to look at the universe at different scales and see if there's some resemblance?

Like a Mandelbrot set looks the same if you zoom in or zoom out doesn't every piece of a broken hologram contain the entire original picture (if somewhat less detailed)?

Or is the analogy just plain stupid?

Well, it may not actually lead anywhere, but apparently the question appears worth asking. And some respected boffins lead by Howard Georgi at Harvard (a.k.a. Haaaaaaved) have actually taken soemthing like this up, of sorts. I don't know whether their theory would match up with data from the "Holometer", but based on you're rather brief post, the idea you bring up here sounds somewhat like the approach proposed by this "unparticle physics". The basic idea, IIRC, is that some non-massless phenomena my be scale-invarient in its interaction with matter, though only very weaking interacting.
TDK
Oct 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (27) Oct 28, 2010
..some respected boffins lead by Howard Georgi.. have actually taken soemthing like this up, of sorts.
Howard Georgi proposed the unparticle physics, which is actually the model of nested density fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas, similar to clouds and/or Brownian or Perlin noise. In this model the Universe has fractal geometry, i.e. not in form of distinct particles, but so-called unparticles. Again, it's nothing, which couldn't be imagined in context of dense aether model - there are actually whole dozens of such theories.

One prediction of this model for example is, the Higgs boson will be of fuzzy, unparticle nature - the Casimir force is the same force, like the force responsible for Yukawa coupling - just all particles are surrounded with virtual bosons there instead of virtual quarks. It means, no matter, how tiny particles we will ever detect, they will be always surrounded with some more dense field leading to coupling and gluing of matter at short distances.
Royale
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010

Who's "we"?

I'm talking about America in general there. It's obviously not everyone's decision, but I wonder why new rigs need to be built from scratch every single time? If we can't save money sending missles to Afghanistan, (Especially now that there's been the 'finding of gold, platinum, etc' underneath the country) maybe we can save some by not rebuilding similar setups. Perhaps that may leave us with some left over to not pay the Soviet Union for rides up to the ISS.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (29) Oct 28, 2010
I'm talking about America in general there.

Anonymous posters have no rights to speak for others, face it. You could be a Muslim provocateur as well. Try to win some public election first.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2010
Anonymous posters have no rights to speak for others, face it.
Says the man/woman with 40 sockpuppet accounts.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (32) Oct 28, 2010
Isn't it a dual (= exactly the opposite) situation, when multiple posters are promoting stance of single man? The logic was never strong feature of your posts, don't you think?
Walfy
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2010
Funny how the suggestion that the universe is an illusion hits a nerve with so many. Wake up, people! The whole thing is an illusion. The ancient rishis even coined a word for it: maya, or Cosmic Delusion. We are all contained in an Ultimate Singularity (not the "God Particle" that CERN hopes to unearth), so that when one thing differentiates from another, it has to be an illusion.
TDK
1 / 5 (29) Oct 28, 2010
..how the suggestion that the universe is an illusion..
This is just a word game. The hologram is real, the projection is real and the waves projected are real - it's just another view of reality (a pretty separated from it, I admit). The hologram is an artifact created with humans, it doesn't occur in nature - so that whole concept is pretty anthropocentric in its nature. If his proponents are claiming, reality doesn't exist, they're just illustrating with it, how deeply they're actually separated from reality.
Undo
1 / 5 (24) Oct 28, 2010
..how the suggestion that the universe is an illusion..
This is just a word game. The hologram is real, the projection is real and the waves projected are real - it's just another view of reality (a pretty separated from it, I admit). The hologram is an artifact created with humans, it doesn't occur in nature - so that whole concept is pretty anthropocentric in its nature. If his proponents are claiming, reality doesn't exist, they're just illustrating with it, how deeply they're actually separated from reality.


Can you please elaborate or restate this? Just trying to follow you on this..
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (57) Oct 28, 2010
Bohm used the analogy of a hologram to explain qm non-locality,.. that within the "underlying reality", entangled particles are not really separated things, but part of a Whole. If this is the case, the universe, as it is in itself (what Kant called noumenal reality), has no need for dimensions, space-time, or causality. These are not entities of themselves. They are artifacts resulting from the conceptualization (mind) of reality, ... degrees of freedom invoked to provide a theoretical coherence to observations. Qm entanglement shows that reality cannot be so conformed within our a-priori conceptual scheme and still remain consistent.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (50) Oct 28, 2010
Waaaay out of my depth here, but isn't another way to accomplish this to look at the universe at different scales and see if there's some resemblance?

Like a Mandelbrot set looks the same if you zoom in or zoom out doesn't every piece of a broken hologram contain the entire original picture (if somewhat less detailed)?

Or is the analogy just plain stupid?

That interpretation would be similar to Leibniz strange monadology.
TDK
1 / 5 (27) Oct 28, 2010
..Can you please elaborate or restate this?..
Which first sentence from my post wasn't clear for you?
jsa09
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
Some Aether theory mostly expected aether to be a dense solid material and that all movement observed was merely vibrations in Aether. This was the theory M&M were working on when they said that movement through aether would cause directional variation in Light speed. With no directional variation in light speed dense aether was discarded.

Since then many people have proposed various models of gas like aether but it has never caught on.
GaryB
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2010
..how the suggestion that the universe is an illusion..
This is just a word game. The hologram is real, the projection is real and the waves projected are real - it's just another view of reality (a pretty separated from it, I admit). The hologram is an artifact created with humans, . . .


Can you please elaborate or restate this? Just trying to follow you on this..


I'll do it: If you raise a chimp in a human environment listening to Shakespeare everyday, it will never understand it, but "model" it as a kind of song. It cannot understand it because it does not have the data structures and processing necessary in its brain to do so. Similarly, it is very likely to be true that humans cannot understand the universe. Electrons are (a) waves, (b) particles, (c) both, (d) none of the above. Of course (d) is true. So, the hologram metaphor is something like the song metaphor by which the monkey theorizes about Shakespeare.
GaryB
4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2010
The hologram is an artifact created with humans, . . .


Can you please elaborate or restate this? Just trying to follow you on this..


I'll do it: If you raise a chimp in a human environment listening to Shakespeare everyday, it will never understand it, but "model" it as a kind of song.
. . .
So, the hologram metaphor is something like the song metaphor by which the monkey theorizes about Shakespeare.

But, don't worry, we'll create machines that will understand more and those machines will beget still more advanced machines. When we ask those God-machines "what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything"? The machines will try to find the words, but then shrug and say "it's something like a song".
TDK
Oct 29, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (29) Oct 29, 2010
If we throw a stone into water, many waves will be formed at the same moment - but only the ripples, which are propagating at lowest speed (~ 2 cm in wavelength) survive for longest time. How the water surface would appear, when observed in these waves?

Universe provides visual clue, how it's formed: At the 2 cm scale it appears like fractal: water ripples, terrain, clouds, tree leaves... At both smaller, both larger distance scale it appears composed of particles (atoms, atom nuclei, planets, stars). At even larger and smaller scale all regularity disappears again and Universe transforms into random noise of distant galactic clusters and/or quantum noise.

The same view we could expect, if some fluctuation in random fractal cloud could observe/interact with another fluctuations - both smaller, both longer ones. Our Universe is actually quite random, but it doesn't appear so, because small portion of noise is always more complex. We are just lucky, we are living in this complex part.
TDK
1.1 / 5 (28) Oct 29, 2010
We are observing Universe with transverse waves (of light), because these waves are spreading in lowest speed in every particle environment. At the water surface the waves of lowest speed are so called capillary ripples, which are of the same wavelength, like the CMB noise. These ripples disperse at both smaller, both larger distance into longitudinal waves: at small distance they're dispersed into Brownian noise of water molecules, at larger scale they're dispersed into gravity waves (not to be confused with gravitational waves).

Actually the same perspective we can face when observing the Universe: at small distances all details are washed into quantum noise, at large distances all objects disappear in microwave noise of cosmic background radiation. Our view doesn't differ from perspective of observer of 3D water surface, i.e. inside of foam formed with random nested density fluctuations of dense gas.

If we want to understand Universe, we should learn about just this geometry.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2010
Says the man/woman with 40 sockpuppet accounts.
So he carves off another sockpuppet named Undo and starts talking to himself. Hilarious.

Zephir, I'm going to drop a Feynman quote for you.

http://www.youtub...TcMD6pOw

Royale
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2010
Nice SH. Does s/he keep getting called Zephir because that was the orig sock puppet?
I love it that it's only trolls that find it crucial to post their gigantic ideas spread out over 6 posts in a matter of 18 mins. (The min flood control will allow).
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (32) Oct 29, 2010
The hologram would be the perfect vehicle to create the infinite number of universes in existence. Mainstream physicists already acknowledge 14 or more dimensions, but I propose an infinite number, all intersecting but at varying "frequencies", invisible except the dimension you're in. Gravitational experimenters have already concluded that 'parallel universes' are the source of gravitational waves in space. For all of you condemning experimentation, you
probably would have been Galileo's persecutors centuries ago. Skeptics are a fearful bunch.
TDK
Oct 29, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (28) Oct 29, 2010
Hey TDK- Don't forget Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but I applaud your openness to understanding phenomena as it slowly reveals itself. Like Einstein, we must be willing to accept the paradoxes that lie within the truth.
TDK
Oct 29, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2010
Mainstream physicists already acknowledge 14 or more dimensions....
Mainstream physicists frequently work with 4, 8, 10, 11 or 21 dimensions because it keeps their theories together and lets their math match known physics to some degree.
Gravitational experimenters have already concluded that 'parallel universes' are the source of gravitational waves in space.
Utter nonsense. Gravitational experimenters (such as LIGO) have turned up nothing so far except for tightening constraints on future (and ongoing) experiments. And gravitational waves have yet to be observed. Where do you guys get such fantasies?
TDK
1.1 / 5 (29) Oct 29, 2010
Gravitational experimenters have already concluded that 'parallel universes' are the source of gravitational waves in space ... Where do you guys get such fantasies?
Actually this event was discussed here already - and I even explained it in the discussion above...

http://www.physor...399.html

The general line of argumentation is the following: if we detect the gravitational noise => it will be the evidence for holographic theory => it will be the evidence for multiverse

TDK
Oct 29, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2010
Hey TDK- Don't forget Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but I applaud your openness to understanding phenomena as it slowly reveals itself. Like Einstein, we must be willing to accept the paradoxes that lie within the truth.
"Phenomena" is the (Greek) plural of "phenomenon".
But "TDK" and "Telekinetic" are two accounts (plural) of one user (singular).
Erog
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2010
Beware of laymen trying desperately to understand and discuss topics that REQUIRE much more base and extended education then they have . . and totally discount those laymen that know they know better.
I hope people here realize that these same topics are simplified almost (and sure sometimes beyond) the point of failing to describe the subject with any real accuracy at all? And they are only here to try to explain the topics on the most basic level they can get away with (often this fails).
This is done to bridge the gap from totally incomprehensible (to people outside the area of expertise) to possibly understandable to some with the education to get part way there . . but with known caveats, poor analogies and inaccuracies that make REAL discussions on the topics poor at best.
Royale
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2010
Gore backwards? Shouldn't you be preaching the dangers of CO2? or are TDK, Telekinetic, and Erog all plural of a singular?
And I don't think anyone argued against a multiverse, that doesn't mean we have to subscribe to ether (just can't bring myself to even type the real word, since you have to be huffing ether in order to 'honestly' believe it; I guess that or just not be well versed in science).
Dug
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
This is what you get when one operates at the far end and a top of many, many multiple layers of theory extension - extending one on top of another. Error is potentially squared and thus improbability and failure almost assured. However, a successful predicted outcome does do wonderful things for all of that theory in between on the exceptional occasional success. Economically though, it's the worst kind of crap shoot, unless you have a life or death discovery as the outcome and that seems to be what's missing here.
Undo
1 / 5 (23) Oct 29, 2010
Thanks for the analogy GaryB. It seems words are but symbols of symbols, twice removed from reality..
Erog
4 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2010
Often people out of there depth flail around and find patterns and meaning where there is none in order to make offense or argue to derail the subject. was this your intention?
(Gore? Really? Can you find other words hidden in there? . . . Al Gore? Wow! That is a reach . . I guess it would be anticlimactic for you to find out “Erog” is the name of a simple robot “AI” I made some 20+ years ago . . I use it now for nostalgic purposes. . . though that is not as useful in personal attack though. )
I was just commenting on the line of posts of self proclaimed “laymen” know-betters, Spouting there take on a topic that has been simplified to the point of being almost useless in the first place.
Like watching a group vehemently arguing on how the “tubes” of the internet work and how THEY know better.
(Discussion on the topic is not the problem it is the “I know better” and argumentative laymen bunch that strangely enough also complain about “Ivory towers” and real experts)
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (53) Oct 29, 2010
Stop being so argumentative, Erog. Perhaps if you were truly an expert you would know that the internet don't even have tubes, as everyone knows it has slots.
Erog
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2010
Stop being so argumentative, Erog. Perhaps if you were truly an expert you would know that the internet don't even have tubes, as everyone knows it has slots.

Quite true, but I can't tell the reptoloids that can I . . . now we are all DOOOMED :)
Royale
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2010
Noumenon is right, there are slots almost everywhere you look online... In fact, the net is probably about half slots, just put there to amuse the male online population.

Slots.
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2010
Such event corresponds the passage of underwater waves through water surface during underwater nuclear blast
You mean something like this?
http://www.youtub...X4wCcU5k

-OK, now I got ya. Little extreme though dont you think?
Royale
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
oh that's what gave me the idea to watch nuclear blasts for the past 45 mins at work.. lol.. totally distracted me.. and i DON'T have ADHD or ADD.. i guess the hunger to learn is more easily fed with visual aid? hmm..
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2010
Nice SH. Does s/he keep getting called Zephir because that was the orig sock puppet?
I love it that it's only trolls that find it crucial to post their gigantic ideas spread out over 6 posts in a matter of 18 mins. (The min flood control will allow).

Yep, also adding telekinetic to the list.

@Zephir, you can go ahead and downrank all of my posts with all of your 400 screen names, it won't bother me, and it won't change the reality of reality. You'll still be a hack, with little to no understanding of what you're talking about, pumping a hypothesis that was discredited in the 1800's.
Royale
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2010
That's great! She's down-ranking you, and you're still beating her in the 'reviews'. It's funny because she doesn't even try to change the way she speaks at all; it makes you wonder why she'd go through the time setting up different accounts...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
Bohm used the analogy of a hologram to explain qm non-locality,.. that within the "underlying reality", entangled particles are not really separated things, but part of a Whole. If this is the case, the universe, as it is in itself (what Kant called noumenal reality), has no need for dimensions, space-time, or causality. These are not entities of themselves. They are artifacts resulting from the conceptualization (mind) of reality, ... degrees of freedom invoked to provide a theoretical coherence to observations. Qm entanglement shows that reality cannot be so conformed within our a-priori conceptual scheme and still remain consistent.


A-ha! This is what I was trying to (very ineptly) allude to with my hologram analogy. I think non-locality is going to be very important to physics, and possibly even philosophy.

Are we any closer to figuring out the actual mechanism?
zslewis91
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2010
-OK, now I got ya. Little extreme though dont you think?


Otto-tard..auto-retard...he's a retard...its gentic.
ubavontuba
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2010
Says the man/woman with 40 sockpuppet accounts.
So he carves off another sockpuppet named Undo and starts talking to himself. Hilarious.
Hey! Maybe all his sockpuppets are manifestations from alternate universes, thus proving the multiverse hypothesis! :D

Zephir, I'm going to drop a Feynman quote for you.

http://www.youtub...TcMD6pOw
Essentially: "It is what it is." I love it!
otto1932
2 / 5 (21) Oct 30, 2010
-OK, now I got ya. Little extreme though dont you think?


Otto-tard..auto-retard...he's a retard...its gentic.
You drink all the time or only around weekends?
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 30, 2010
Lewis was out cooking mash in the shed when something went wrong...
http://www.youtub...a_player
Ravenrant
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2010
"Aether was merely the medium on which physicists thought light traveled. We know now that light does not require a physical medium through which to travel. Oliver Lodge didn't need to be refuted because there is no aether."

So if light doesn't need a medium, how does it know how how fast it's going without a point of reference?
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (57) Oct 30, 2010
"Aether was merely the medium on which physicists thought light traveled. We know now that light does not require a physical medium through which to travel. Oliver Lodge didn't need to be refuted because there is no aether."

So if light doesn't need a medium, how does it know how how fast it's going without a point of reference?

From lights "point of view", reference frame, no time elapses, so the question is meaningless.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (53) Oct 30, 2010
... or you could say from the reference frame of light there is no here or there, it's source and destination are in the same space-time place.
droid001
not rated yet Oct 30, 2010
If the universe is a hologram, what does this mean in practice? Does it change anything?
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2010
... or you could say from the reference frame of light there is no here or there, it's source and destination are in the same space-time place.


Or, you could say that LIGHT = SPACE.

MathieuHamaekers
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2010
The universe a hologram???? excuse me, a hologram is a static 3D illusion created in a rather flat but still 3D plate, representing a picture of something that exists outside the hologram. So a hologram is a picture of something that is alreaddy there. You can't make a picture of nothing. So if the universe was a hologram, it should be a picture of something else no??? I wonder what?
Any how. A hologram is a 3D representation of a 4 our maybe 11 dimensional reality. A hologram of a living being is just a frosen 3D image, not alive, not able to move not able to do anything. Just like a statue. So please, the universe a Hologram???? Go find a other job will you. Maybee scientology our some other cult is into such ideas. But don't call this science.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (32) Oct 30, 2010
Most of you remind me of the children in "Lord of the Flies"; taking swipes at one another to mask your fear from others. The beauty of science is that it asks simple questions about the universe whose answers are often elegantly simple. Nobel laureates are the first ones to state this.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (23) Oct 30, 2010
Most of you remind me of the children in "Lord of the Flies"; taking swipes at one another to mask your fear from others.
Translation: I'm better than any of you...
The beauty of science is that it asks simple questions about the universe whose answers are often elegantly simple. Nobel laureates are the first ones to state this.
...Because I can write simpleton pap like this and impress myself no end.

You're a twat.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (37) Oct 30, 2010
Poor Otto, you've just revealed an inferiority complex. Were you humiliated often by your family or school mates?
james11
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2010
Specifically explain how he revealed an inferiority complex, please I am curious...
jay66
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2010
Just a guess but i think the puppet master is ethelred.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2010
Most of you remind me of the children in "Lord of the Flies"; taking swipes at one another to mask your fear from others. The beauty of science is that it asks simple questions about the universe whose answers are often elegantly simple. Nobel laureates are the first ones to state this.

No, that'd be philosophy. SCience uses methods of observation. The question isn't as important as the answer in Science. In philosophy, it may be more important than the answer.
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2010
The question isn't as important as the answer in Science.

But sometimes asking the right question can be paramount to new understanding, even if it isn't directly answered (as it leads to new avenues of investigation).
otto1932
2 / 5 (21) Oct 31, 2010
Poor Otto, you've just revealed an inferiority complex. Were you humiliated often by your family or school mates?
Count your votes and tally up your cognitive disconnect. Sorry, I just get a little tired of the 'holier than thou' types sometimes.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2010
The question isn't as important as the answer in Science.

But sometimes asking the right question can be paramount to new understanding, even if it isn't directly answered (as it leads to new avenues of investigation).

But the question is the philosophy, while the science is the recording and intepretation of the evidence.

This is why most classical philosophers view science as a result or even as a subsect of philosophy, which it is historically.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (29) Oct 31, 2010
If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.
Albert Einstein, (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate
VK1
1 / 5 (30) Oct 31, 2010
I've just tested it and it is negative, reality is not a hologram. It is partially correct as energy in motion has relative mass, but is wrong as molecules and compounds would be dependent on an outerworldly source (ie a projector). Molecules and compounds are a result of gravity strong force and electromagnetism.

If the world is set without real mass we encounter a problem, all that makes sense suddenly doesn't. If the world is being imaged, who is imaging it? This 2D+1time theory requires extra dimensions to hold true. Without dimensions outside of those we see, or, without a divine imager reality does not materialize. Literally.

String theory is philosophy, not science, if it comes down to it all empirical evidence is out the window as reality we see is interdependent on things we don't. String theory is false.
VK1
1 / 5 (30) Oct 31, 2010
We're all made in His image.

This is a statement science cannot refute. We can show how He can be left out of the equation, leaving religion (belief) and science (observation) seperate. If we cannot observe ALL of reality we must take for fact that which cannot be observed. See what is rising?

Taking for science that which cannot be observed is philosophical, a belief system, we might as well just set equations to correspond with observables and forget about physical laws altogether.

There exist a fine line between science and philosophy, all science depending on variables outside of the observable crosses that line and is unprovable.
VK1
1 / 5 (26) Oct 31, 2010
Mass is 1 of 2. 1) physical particle (able to hold charge) 2) a spacial warp, vacuum singularity (also chargeable).

The third form of mass is not real, it is real in its effect, relatively massive. Energy is convertible to mass by spacial compression, energy focused on a single point produces a singularity ( form 2 mass ). So 1 (particle physics) is out, leaving 2 (field theory) as real. 1 is still useful for quantification purposes.

Mass is a compressed region of space (aka Higgs field).
Zilwiki
2 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2010
Most of these posts seem to be nonsense. The universe exists, we're all sitting in it sending messages to each other. I have no idea what "the universe is a hologram" means. The article never explains it, and no article I've ever read explians it. But matter near the earth's surface still accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s, and sex still feels good. The universe exists, we just don't know most of its properties.
holometer
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2010
This is a great article. It's saying the 3rd dimension is an illusion. So the third dimension is an illusion like you see in a painting. In a painting they have to use things like shadowing, relative height and relative size in order to create the illusion of depth.

For instance, when you look down a long road it shrinks the further away it gets. Painters use this to show depth in a painting on a flat canvas.

So depth is an illusion. There isn't any physical representation of depth. Black Hole Thermodynamics tells us that volume is an illusion.
MatthiasF
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2010
The question isn't as important as the answer in Science.

But sometimes asking the right question can be paramount to new understanding, even if it isn't directly answered (as it leads to new avenues of investigation).

But the question is the philosophy, while the science is the recording and intepretation of the evidence.

This is why most classical philosophers view science as a result or even as a subsect of philosophy, which it is historically.


You're describing only Science from deduction, theories built from induction do not fit into your description. Most modern theories are based on induction and falsification, not the far more reliable deduction.

Read Popper.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (30) Oct 31, 2010
Opinions are subjective takes on any given subject, including scientific "fact".
One researcher's conclusions will be refuted by another's, calling the veracity of both into question. Over time, adjustments are made to even sacrosanct theories; i.e., the speed of light has always been constant, a new theory states otherwise, so my point is simply, when venturing an opinion, recognize it for what it is, and throwing a tantrum won't make it any more true. The researcher in this article doesn't claim to be the originator of the hologram theory, just to devising a novel way to prove it. I don't find it threatening even if it proves to be true. In fact, it would be cool if it's true.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2010
Over time, adjustments are made to even sacrosanct theories

Well duh, but when it happens, it's got nothing at all to do with subjective opinion, but objective observation.
derphysiker
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2010
And again a "scientist" mistakes a mathematical theory for reality. Yes, the holographical principle works, you can describe a 3d object by vectors on its 2d surface and get the same results as with 3d calculations. But again: the mathematical theory is NOT reality, it only describes it more or less exact. Gödel already proved beyond doubt that no scientific theory can prove all of its possible assertions.

Of course if you find a unique selling position like "we all live in a two-dimensional universe", you are much more likely to get funded... sad, but true.
DamienS
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2010
But again: the mathematical theory is NOT reality

How do you know?
Gödel already proved beyond doubt that no scientific theory can prove all of its possible assertions.

What does the incompleteness theorem have to do with this? Should we not value any mathematical knowledge?
Of course if you find a unique selling position like "we all live in a two-dimensional universe", you are much more likely to get funded... sad, but true.

Yes, we should reject all unintuitive research a priori, as it can't possibly lead to anything useful! How sad it would be.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2010
You're describing only Science from deduction, theories built from induction do not fit into your description. Most modern theories are based on induction and falsification, not the far more reliable deduction.

Read Popper.

Popper isn't the be all end all outside of his statements of falsification, hence why I said science without observation is philosophy.

Popper saw inductive reasoning as faulty, or of being to broad a criterion for distinguishing metaphysical from physical. You're arguing against your own statement by citing Popper.
KwasniczJ
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2010
But again: the mathematical theory is NOT reality

How do you know?

Theory is always considered unproven in Popper's methodology of science, whereas reality is always considered proven. Therefore no theory can correspond the reality in scientific method - not just the mathematical one. Theory can always become a subject of falsification, reality not.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2010
Theory is always considered unproven in Popper's methodology of science, whereas reality is always considered proven.
That's false.
Therefore no theory can correspond the reality in scientific method - not just the mathematical one. Theory can always become a subject of falsification, reality not.

Also false.

This argument has been discouraged by Popper himself and discredited by empiricism and rationalism. Again you're treading into logical positivism, which is wholly discredited and understandably false.

We observe reality indirectly. We have an image in our mind that we paint with our senses. We are biologically linked to a false depiction of reality as simulated through the tools of our mind. All external measurements and subsequent extrapolations are mere extensions of this tool.

In effect, there is no tabula rasa, no blank slate. Our conciousness merely creates what we want to see based on what we perceive. That's the philosophy of measurement.
Royale
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2010
How could someone down-vote Skeptic on this one? It's totally logical and rational, how do you argue with that? Or do you just hide behind the stars you click and not respond?
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (31) Nov 01, 2010
I take exception to the depiction of consciousness as
merely creating what we want to see based on what we perceive. Our consciousness is not in the business of doing what you or I want it to do, rather, we take orders from IT. We're just a temporary meat sack that
consciousness has hitched a ride with. It's also an unlikely thing to quantify, having no mass, and it's too elusive to be measured by conventional means.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2010
How could someone down-vote Skeptic on this one? It's totally logical and rational, how do you argue with that? Or do you just hide behind the stars you click and not respond?

A lot of people have incredible difficulty perceiving that notion. Similar to how many people have difficulty imagining what a million looks like.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2010
How could someone down-vote Skeptic on this one? It's totally logical and rational, how do you argue with that? Or do you just hide behind the stars you click and not respond?
Have a look at the activity page: VK1, also known as Zephyr.
MatthiasF
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010

Popper isn't the be all end all outside of his statements of falsification, hence why I said science without observation is philosophy.

Popper saw inductive reasoning as faulty, or of being to broad a criterion for distinguishing metaphysical from physical. You're arguing against your own statement by citing Popper.


Huh? I was mentioning that you describing "classical philosophies" was during an era where mostly deductive reasoning was used to build theory, whereas inductive is the modus operandi today.

I don't see how my statement is in conflict with the Popper reference.

And I agree with your response to KwasniczJ, albeit I don't think positivism is as "discredited" as you think if you agree with Popper's arguments against falsification.
Slotin
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 01, 2010
How could someone down-vote Skeptic on this one? It's totally logical and rational, how do you argue with that?
Well, I'd say, experiment/observation always goes first. Physics is an experimental science and it will always be - despite of some people, who are apparently believing, their theories could replace reality. Actually such theories are just trying to replace the religion of medieval era, that's it.

As Feynman once said:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Who is still believing, Skeptic_Heretic was perfectly logical?

BTW the sentence "That's false." has nothing to do with logic - this is just a categorical claim with no arguments. It's nothing strange, someone doesn't recognize logic, if he even doesn't recognize absence of logic.
Slotin
1.1 / 5 (29) Nov 01, 2010
The science is becoming authoritative and religious in measurable way.

http://www.americ...ritarian
Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (35) Nov 01, 2010
Do you really believe that experimental data , no matter how sophisticated the design or the instrument, is immune to differing interpretation among the experimenters?
Absolute faith in "objective observation" that requires human involvement is misplaced, as it's vulnerable to the unconscious predisposition of the experimenter. Lab politics can also affect results. Alhough it's the only avenue for proof- it ain't fool-proof.
DamienS
5 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2010
Do you really believe that experimental data , no matter how sophisticated the design or the instrument, is immune to differing interpretation among the experimenters?

Differing interpretations are a part of the scientific process. It forces the publishers to defend their claims and/or offer experimental improvements to remove those doubts. Why would anyone question this process? Only those that don't know how science works would bring this up as some kind of failing.
Absolute faith in "objective observation" that requires human involvement is misplaced

What the hell does that even mean?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2010
Oh what an astonishing pile of bullshit.
(article and comments)

DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2010
Oh what an astonishing pile of bullshit.
(article and comments)

Thanks for sharing your bullshit comments. :)
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2010
Do you really believe that experimental data, no matter how sophisticated the design or the instrument, is immune to differing interpretation among the experimenters?
Of course not - but such situation could be corrected only with new, better experimental data - not with new theory. Another evidence of superiority of experiment over theory is the fact, we can have more then one theory for interpretation of single experiment - but not vice-versa. When experimental results differ, it's generally considered a noise - not the evidence of many mutually contradicting theories at the same moment. When theories differ in prediction of single phenomena, only one (or none of them) is usually considered valid in such a case.

Sorry - I didn't invent these rules...;-)
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2010
We're all made in His image.

This is a statement science cannot refute.


Science can't refute the statement "we're all made in the image of The Great Boogie Monster" either, but that doesn't lend any meaning to it: it's still vacuous gibberish.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2010
We're all made in His image.
I've to admit, I don't understand the assumption of holographic theory, where the observable reality is formed with projection of some other hidden reality from extradimensions. Does it mean, we have twins in some multiverse? For what such multiplicity is good for? Does some deity play with us like with remotely controlled robots? Are we living in simulation? Such ideas appear strange for me, but they're surprisingly deeply rooted in certain parts of scientific community.

http://en.wikiped...universe
MaxwellsDemon
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
There’s a much better description of this experiment on the Fermilab site: http://holometer.fnal.gov/

What I haven’t been able to find yet, is an explanation of this Mhz signal range they’re looking in. By their own description, the actual frequency of the intervals that create the 3D universe should be the inverse of the Planck unit of time, which would be ~10^43/sec.

Can anyone explain why the Mhz range is significant? It doesn’t seem like the “noise” of a 10^43/sec signal would be detectable in the 10^6/sec range…
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2010
Another evidence of superiority of experiment over theory is the fact, we can have more then one theory for interpretation of single experiment - but not vice-versa.
Are you saying we can't have more than one experiment to test a theory? That's utterly ridiculous.
When experimental results differ, it's generally considered a noise
That's not accurate. It is generally considered an error until all vectors for error can be eliminated.
not the evidence of many mutually contradicting theories at the same moment.
Supersymmetry breaking would be evidence for multiple conflicting theories for one.
When theories differ in prediction of single phenomena, only one (or none of them) is usually considered valid in such a case.
Again this isn't correct. You're making very broad and inaccurate statements as to how science, primarily experiment, works.
Sorry - I didn't invent these rules...;-)
You must have, either that or whoever told them to you did.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2010
What lab are you affiliated with, Skeptic?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2010
What lab are you affiliated with, Skeptic?
I'm a freelance metrology contractor. I deal with high end measurement apparatus for multiple labs, primarily medical. Why do you ask?
Yoaker
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
The way I see it, the Holographic Principle means:

Any local universe of dimension X is equivalent to a non-local universe of dimension X-1.

There is no need to think of an actual projection from X-1 to X (like in optical holograms), the correspondence between X-1 and X is enough.

The article talks about the 2D/3D correspondence, but the 4D/5D correspondence is much more attractive in my opinion:

In this model the local reality we perceive is 5D and the non-local correspondence is 4D. The extra 5th dimension is a second time dimension arising from the non-locality in 4D.

If we were perceiving 4D as is normally understood I think we would not experience free will or at least it would indeed be a mere illusion in a fully deterministic universe. An extra time dimension on the other hand allows us (biological systems) to locally lower entropy and ultimately act out our free will.
Yoaker
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
Models with two time dimensions are usually not allowed, because they open up the possibility of time travel, leading to the grandfather paradox, but if we assume that this ability is somehow bounded, there are profound advantages like the possibility of non-computational devices (i.e. minds).

And I, for one, would not mind travelling back in time at the end of the Universe to set off the Big Bang to create the Universe in the first place.
codesuidae
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010

Any local universe of dimension X is equivalent to a non-local universe of dimension X-1.

[...]

In this model the local reality we perceive is 5D and the non-local correspondence is 4D. The extra 5th dimension is a second time dimension arising from the non-locality in 4D.


Could you comment further on how the correspondence between X and X-1 might affect non-locality?
Slotin
1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2010
Can anyone explain why the Mhz range is significant? It doesn't seem like the noise of a 10^43/sec signal would be detectable in the 10^6/sec range
You're completely right - but above the MHz range the CMB noise becomes dominant (as everyone can make sure with his TV set) - and these guys are apparently believing, their holographic noise is something completely different. So they have no large place for search. Actually it's all just a comedy.
Yoaker
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010

Could you comment further on how the correspondence between X and X-1 might affect non-locality?


If you are asking how non-locality arises, I think we can think of it as a mapping from local points in X-1 to non-local circles in X. This is certainly the case for optical holograms.

If you are asking about the interaction between X and X-1 I think it is exactly wave-particle duality.

Does that make sense?
VK1
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2010
I hologram, if biology is holography then life as an emergence is causal to reality, things are how we interpret them. Feynman said we don't ever really see anything we perceive energy as what we define it to be. Every form of life is intelligent. Intelligence is seeing things around you for what they are. It is the ability to survive, to sustain composition(atoms molecules and compounds). Are we the cause of the universe or are we causing it? I suspect this is not a hologram, it is something a little darker, a little more complex than whizzing strings of energy. I think there are nuclei involved. Heavy singularity with ability to change direction of rotation. Opposing rotation annihilates. Common joins, strong force(singularitygravity). There is an opposite to this mass. Energy radiates(em, weakforce) it keeps atomic nuclei of atoms from merging with each other. Fusion is the overpowering of energy, we give gravity a push to pass the barrier where it is classified to be strong force.
VK1
1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2010
Ofcourse there is a minimum size relative to our reality. A blackhole always approaches size 0 it is never actually 0 it is always in the next Planck of time that it will be zero. Relative sizes can be drawn. The fabric is not 2 dimensional, lines of influence from singularity have infinite directional variations. Spin causes polarization, lines of influence which results in inverseofpull, radiation, lines of influence above equator attribute north, below equator to south. Electromagnetized barrier. If anything it is more appropriate to say that reality is infidimensional due to the lines of influence. (within the fuzz itself lay infinite possibilities not corresponding to our reality)(opposite directionality and we cannot interpret the signal)

The Planck is a useful tool, within reality we set parameters, this includes minimum size.
danman5000
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2010
...A blackhole always approaches size 0 it is never actually 0 it is always in the next Planck of time that it will be zero. Relative sizes can be drawn. The fabric is not 2 dimensional, lines of influence from singularity have infinite directional variations. Spin causes polarization, lines of influence which results in inverseofpull, radiation, lines of influence above equator attribute north, below equator to south. Electromagnetized barrier...

This last post by VK1/Zephyr is eerily similar to posts by genastropsychicallst - perhaps he's finally snapped and fallen further down into insanity?
DamienS
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2010
Models with two time dimensions are usually not allowed

Indeed, more and more attention is being paid to removing time as a dimension completely.
Slotin
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2010
The equivalence of CMB photons and gravitational waves could be understood as a manifestation of Grand Unification Theory too, because Big Bang theory is assuming, during Universe formation all interactions were merged into single one. So it's not so strange, we are observing both primordial gravitons, both primordial gravitational waves like primordial photons, i.e. like microwave background (CMB) - every other result would violate GUT.

Enter TOBA, the torsion bar detector, the cheap and cheerful gravity wave detector. http://arstechnic...izon.ars
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2010
... indeed, but the universe is noising not a have/has be ...


That is a load of crap. The universe is filled with all sorts of 'noises' even if not audible to the ear. Even the sun has 'noises.' Want to 'hear' the sun on the visible spectrum?

Get a high-gain pre-amplifier.

Then, isolate a small solar cell with a small audio transformer connected to the input of the pre-amplifier (make sure the 8-ohm side is connected to the solar cell), and point it at various light sources to show proof of concept.

Finally, point it at the sun.

Should be interesting to see where the above experiment at Firmilab goes, if anywhere.
Aristoteles
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
Holographic or F R A C T A L I C ?