Fermilab Experiment Finds No Evidence That We Live in a Hologram

Looks like our reality is still the results of our actions for now.

gizmodo.com...

A controversial experiment at Fermilab designed to hunt for signs that our universe may really be a hologram has failed to find the evidence it was seeking

However, all hope for the Matrix is not lost as

The $2.5 million experiment was controversial from the get-go, with the inventors of the holographic principle counting among the naysayers. So expect to see a bit of schadenfreude making the rounds of the theoretical physics community today.

Not all was lost though, as it appears that we got a new tool set added to our scientific belt.

“We’ve developed a new way of studying space and time that we didn’t have before. We weren’t even sure we could attain the sensitivity we did.”

Your understanding of the allegory of the Matrix is skewed.

We aren't held in bio tanks with wires coming out our skulls. Whats held captive is your mind, the "Matrix' is the perceived reality presented to us by the Paradigm that presents you with ideology, culture, nationalism, pride, society and civilization.

These are the false realities that you are driven to adhere to. Because you have been learned to accept it, promote it and defend it.

Everything that you know is false, your mind is trapped in a box provided for you to think in.

a reply to: interupt42

Looks like our reality is still the results of our actions for now.

Our actions are dictated by the most holographic thing there is - DNA. Fermilab doesn't look there, unfortunately.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This works for god, the matrix, and everything else.

a reply to: interupt42

The theory was always stupid imo. S&f for sharing.

Oooooohhh I was just about to attempt to hack it...

All the Matrix analogies are misleading, the type of hologram they are talking about is not even remotely close to the premise of the film.

originally posted by: gosseyn
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This works for god, the matrix, and everything else.

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was.

a reply to: interupt42

Unless the Lab is a hologram and doesn't know.

Money and time wasted looking for evidence for something that came out from a movie.

Face reality, your bills are real and government leaders suck.

originally posted by: Trueman

Money and time wasted looking for evidence for something that came out from a movie.

It was a theory that originated in the 1970's by two of the top physicists of the era.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Trueman

Money and time wasted looking for evidence for something that came out from a movie.

It was a theory that originated in the 1970's by two of the top physicists of the era.

Really? I didn't know that. That information just make it even worse.

See, it means it took 45 years to debunk such a silly idea.

originally posted by: Trueman

Really? I didn't know that. That information just make it even worse.

See, it means it took 45 years to debunk such a silly idea.

It took that long ebcuase the technology did not exist to run experiments on the theory at that point, similar to the bevy of experiments being run at CERN now.

If you actually looked into the theory it is quite interesting and deals with information pulled into black holes and how that correlates with some fundamental assumptions regarding the workings of the universe and has nothing to do with a sci-fi film's premise.

a reply to: Trueman

See, it means it took 45 years to debunk such a silly idea.

If it took 45 years to debunk than apparently it wasn't that silly was it?

originally posted by: gosseyn
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This works for god, the matrix, and everything else.

Yes it is. No proof there is money in your pocket is proof there is no money in your pocket.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Trueman

Really? I didn't know that. That information just make it even worse.

See, it means it took 45 years to debunk such a silly idea.

It took that long ebcuase the technology did not exist to run experiments on the theory at that point, similar to the bevy of experiments being run at CERN now.

If you actually looked into the theory it is quite interesting and deals with information pulled into black holes and how that correlates with some fundamental assumptions regarding the workings of the universe and has nothing to do with a sci-fi film's premise.

A voice of science and reason in the wilderness.
And who believes FermiLabs anyhoo. It was made obsolete by the LHC. They had to change the research . At one time they wanted to compete with CERN over who would be the first to confirm the Higgs-Bosun. I dont think they have the firepower...

originally posted by: Gothmog

A voice of science and reason in the wilderness.

And who believes FermiLabs anyhoo. It was made obsolete by the LHC. They had to change the research . At one time they wanted to compete with CERN over who would be the first to confirm the Higgs-Bosun. I dont think they have the firepower...

No, we missed that opportunity hen we defunded our own collider.

whew!!! i was so worried i wasn't real

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It carries with it some nuance:
en.wikipedia.org - Evidence of absence...

The difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g. an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and a simple absence of evidence (e.g. no careful research has been done) can be nuanced. Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence.[citation needed] The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it was there.

The above is saying it's hard sometimes to distinguish between:
* Evidence of absence
* Absence of evidence

If one has established there's evidence of absence then its absence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This means we CAN prove a negative (beyond reasonable doubt).

a reply to: jonnywhite

Agreed. It's well known in logic that we can prove negatives. Law of non-contradiction being one of them. Ironically, "you can't prove a negative" is a negative, and it's fun to point that out to those who assert it.