It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fermilab Experiment Finds No Evidence That We Live in a Hologram

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Found this:
www.quora.com - Why do people say "you can't prove a negative" when it's actually very easy to prove some negatives?...

Interesting discussion overall. I think I've learned more than I did about it. In the past, I knew it was easy to prove an alien exists. We just need to find one of them. But it's harder to prove no alien exists in the universe because we'd have to scour the entire cosmos or at least prove Earth can be the only planet with life, thus being able to infer.

For example, I was reminded something has to be falsifiable to disprove it. Otherwise, we cannot find evidence of its absence.

But yet I also think if God exists then God can do whatever God wants to do. If God wants to change the laws of the universe tomorrow then that's what God will do. And right now I can't disprove God. So tomorrow it's possible all our proofs will be false and discarded.

That's why I say negatives can be proven (beyond reasonable doubt). But I won't say 100%. For all I know, God isn't merely waiting until tomorrow to change the laws of hte unvierse, but is dilligently altering them everytime we make an observation. So it's possible there're completely different laws in differnet parts of the universe. We might not even be observing what's real. Of course, for all intents and purposes, we have to treat the rules we live under as real. Our proofs, similarly, are proofs.

And what I stated above about God is not falsifiable because it's no a legitimate theory, so it's no better than me saying Santa Claus is real. I could have said nothing at all and it'd be the same thing.
edit on 12/6/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah i was just having a little fun with the post .



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The truth is out there.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Your understanding of the allegory of the Matrix is skewed.


LOL it looks like some people are getting hung up on me using the Matrix in the OP. It was just done in fun. The real story is about the article the experiment and the results.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.



edit on 591231America/ChicagoSun, 06 Dec 2015 13:59:46 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Well ill wait until the LHC looks into as it a far better facility.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
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?


I don't know man. To be honest, first time I knew about that idea was with the movie. I found it silly right the way and didn't need any evidence, just common sense.

Oh come on, don't tell me now you were one of those who thought it could be true.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks again paesano. Good point, 45 years ago people believed in a lot of things we don't believe now anymore. Like promises made by candidates and mass media.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: intrptr


Your understanding of the allegory of the Matrix is skewed.

LOL it looks like some people are getting hung up on me using the Matrix in the OP. It was just done in fun. The real story is about the article the experiment and the results.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.



Sure okay, sorry I see others picked up on that too much…

if you want to delve into whether things are not what they seem scientifically, theres well… we only see color in a broad open ended electromagnetic spectrum for one, the illusion of solid matter for another (mostly empty space) and the unbounded Universe, strike three… side retires.

So we have allegory, Plato's Cave is another good one. Most modern Matrixy tales stem from that.

Ever see Mulholland Falls? Fast forward to 50:30 in here:

edit on 6-12-2015 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
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.


The holographic universe theory has nothing in common with the premise of The matrix.

A simplified explanation for the holographic universe theory is that rather than the universe having three spatial dimensions, it has only two dimensions. All information in the universe (all things in nature) are defined by two dimensions of space, but it is perceived by us as having a third spatial dimension -- much like a hologram appears as if has three dimensions, but the information that makes up that hologram is only in two dimensions.

In this theory, there isn't an intelligence "running a simulation" like there was in the movie. Instead, it's just that the nature of the universe is really in fewer dimensions than we perceive.


edit on 12/6/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Trueman
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.


The holographic universe theory has nothing in common with the premise of The matrix.

A simplified explanation for the holographic universe theory is that rather than the universe having three spatial dimensions, it has only two dimensions. All information in the universe (all things in nature) are defined by two dimensions of space, but it is perceived by us as having a third spatial dimension -- much like a hologram appears as if has three dimensions, but the information that makes up that hologram is only in two dimensions.

In this theory, there isn't an intelligence "running a simulation" like there was in the movie. Instead, it's just that the nature of the universe is really in fewer dimensions than we perceive.



Thank you for that explanation Soylent


Now it looks at least way less silly to me.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
interesting, tho in my opinion we do live in a hologram
a reply to: interupt42



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I think the purpose behind the Holometer is to explore the quantum (Planck scale microphysics) nature of spacetime. Is spacetime granular (quantized) or is it smooth? It would be good to know if we are to ever formulate a theory of quantum gravity.

I think so far it’s been unsuccessful in determining/discovering spacetime quanta. This instrument could play a huge role in establishing the groundwork for future physics.

HERE’s a paper at the arXiv site you might take a look at.

Have fun!



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed some ATS members can be on some scientific topics. The idea of a holographic universe is a very serious one invented by very serious scientists. The idea originated based on the observation that when matter is sucked into a black hole the bits of information which made up that matter are stored on the 2-dimensional surface of the event horizon around the black hole in a sort of 2D holographic format.


One puzzling feature is that the entropy of a black hole scales with its area rather than with its volume, since entropy is normally an extensive quantity that scales linearly with the volume of the system. This odd property led Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind to propose the holographic principle, which suggests that anything that happens in a volume of spacetime can be described by data on the boundary of that volume.[120]

Black Hole - Event Horizon


And from the OP's article:


Back in the 1970s, a physicist named Jacob Bekenstein showed that the information about a black hole’s interior is encoded on its two-dimensional surface area (the “boundary”) rather than within its three-dimensional volume (the “bulk”). Twenty years later, Leonard Susskind and Gerard ‘t Hooft extended this notion to the entire universe, likening it to a hologram: our three-dimensional universe in all its glory emerges from a two-dimensional “source code.”


Notice the part I highlighted in bold. I find the use of the phrase "source code" very interesting in this context. Think about a 3D video game. If you were a person in such a world you would think it's a 3D world and that you can move around in 3 dimensions. However in reality, the world is being generated from data held in the computer memory, and that data will be structured as 2-dimensional and 1-dimensional arrays. In reality any information can be distilled down to a 1D array, just like any base 10 number or any base 64 number can be distilled down to base 2 (binary).

Having said all that I've always been a bit skeptical of the holographic principle, especially if our universe is infinite, which it seems to be. However this experiment isn't enough to rule out the holographic principle completely imo. They are making many assumptions about the way holographic space-time should jitter and I think it leaves a lot of room for mistakes. This experiment is certainly not enough to throw the whole holographic principle out the window .


The holographic principle has since become one of the most influential ideas in theoretical physics, yet many believe it to be untestable, at least for now. (It would require probing black holes up-close, a daunting prospect even if we had the technology to do so.) Hogan decided to try anyway. The Holometer looks for a special kind of holographic noise — a kind of quantum jitter in space-time — using a fairly humble-looking set-up: an array of lasers and mirrors in a dank underground tunnel, with the control room housed in a trailer.

edit on 6/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The matrix comment wasn't meant to be taken literal or seriously.

Apperently my sense of humor Was a flop


edit on 501231America/ChicagoSun, 06 Dec 2015 22:50:00 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The matrix comment wasn't meant to be taken literal or seriously.

My comment was more directed at other people who brought up the topic of the matrix. But I decided to remove my comment about the matrix because now that I think about it, the holographic principle and a computer generated matrix really do have a lot in common, when you think about it terms of how a computer generates a 3D world using low dimensional data structures.
edit on 6/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



This test wasn't really meant as you stated to verify a matrix world , but if the results came back positive it could possibily lead us there.

What I find interesting is how challenging it is to even come up with ways to test the theories.


Unfortunately the results don't prove much nor diminish the likelyhood of a holographic world, but I feel it was worth the try.



edit on 551231America/ChicagoSun, 06 Dec 2015 22:55:56 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
This doesn't really prove or disprove anything... It only shows that the hypothesis currently is untestable and that the experiment was a failure from the start.
Even if the results indicated the possibility of a holographic reality, that doesn't really validate the hypothesis either.

This experiment didn't seem to be looking for the source of the holographic "projections", how they function. The foundation of our reality is probably something we can't test in our current technological state and I think this experiment implies that this is the case for now.
I don't think we'll find out what the foundation of our universe is for quite awhile, but hey I'm probably wrong.


edit on 7-12-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This works for god, the matrix, and everything else.
It works for God because God is invisible, and it may work for things that are too small to see if you don't have a powerful enough magnifier, but no, it doesn't work for everything else.

For example I'm pretty sure that absence of proof of elephants in the room with me right now is proof there are no elephants in the room. So sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but not always. It depends.

Regarding the OP I would have been surprised if they found the universe was holographic, but then I've been surprised by nature before.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join