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.

 

Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Serdgiam
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


The way I like to think of it is that they are, first off, not mutually exclusive. But, they are speaking to different things.

In the case of a Holodeck (which I am waiting for, btw), it is a simulation using holograms.

So, the overall "cause" is referred to by the "simulation theories" while the pattern of the "effect" is described by "hologram theories."


Okay, yeah that's what I think too. But I am ignorant for thinking so apparently.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


We are all fighting our own battles, sometimes we can take it out on others.

Its a rough time of year for some.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




The way I like to think of it is that they are, first off, not mutually exclusive. But, they are speaking to different things.

In the case of a Holodeck (which I am waiting for, btw), it is a simulation using holograms.

So, the overall "cause" is referred to by the "simulation theories" while the pattern of the "effect" is described by "hologram theories."


This is what I'm trying to say, this poster states it better than I could. The two dimensional is not the simulation it's when the light is put through the photo image that it makes a three dimensional image (A HOLOGRAM) that is the simulation in that it doesn't exist and still the two dimensional image does exist but the three dimensional is a representation of the original making it in fact a simulation.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 




So, the overall "cause" is referred to by the "simulation theories" while the pattern of the "effect" is described by "hologram theories."

The problem is that the idea that the Universe is holographic in nature (an offshoot of string theory) does not imply a simulation. What is being simulated? Is our universe a copy of a "real" universe?

The actual theory is that everything in the Universe (matter, energy, and the physical laws which govern them) originate in some other "place". That does not mean that matter, energy and the physical laws which govern them are not real. It does not mean they are a simulation.
edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I wouldnt disagree with that.

This universe could be holographic in nature, but not a simulation. And it could also be a simulation where the core is not interference patterns, but something else entirely. It could be both, like an advanced holodeck. And it could be neither one as well! And perhaps, even if this is all a simulation, it doesnt mean that it is any less "real" as far as we are concerned.

Just possibilities to be explored that can frequently get mixed up due to the vague nature of what is being suggested.
edit on 22-12-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Serdgiam
reply to post by Phage
 


I wouldnt disagree with that.

This universe could be holographic in nature, but not a simulation. And it could also be a simulation where the core is not interference patterns, but something else entirely. It could be both, like an advanced holodeck. And it could be neither one as well! And perhaps, even if this is all a simulation, it doesnt mean that it is any less "real" as far as we are concerned.

Just possibilities to be explored that can frequently get mixed up due to the vague nature of what is being suggested.
edit on 22-12-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



I agree with you here. I don't disagree that they could be mutually exclusive, but I lean on the side that it might be working together as the hologram is the way the information is given and that yes this is a representation of the original universe. A place that we can never ever see because it died long ago the information stored and then reentered into existence, or that existence is and always has been simulated, meaning that there really is never substance, just the appearance of such.

What makes me question the true existence of anything solid (Matter) Is quantum physics, the way particles act when observed as opposed to unobserved, so therefore IMHO then world is into being because of observation. What is the observer? How would they observe? Is it easier to simulate matter as opposed to actually creating real matter?
edit on 22-12-2013 by ldyserenity because: add



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

ldyserenity
What makes me question the true existence of anything solid (Matter) Is quantum physics, the way particles act when observed as opposed to unobserved, so therefore IMHO then world is into being because of observation. What is the observer? How would they observe? Is it easier to simulate matter as opposed to actually creating real matter?


My personal opinion on quantum anything is that we are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

*snorts and pushes glasses up*


I think it might be productive to examine it as a change in medium. In which, each medium has their unique properties. I think that what many are doing (outside of things like the schrodinger wave equation) is trying to ascribe the properties of the physical universe to the properties of the quantum. Kind of like shooting a bullet into ballistics gel, but predicting the entire trajectory of the object as it would travel in a single medium (air) and then wondering why things look so messed up. When one of the main properties that might not apply is time, things can get pretty funky in how we predict them to work and how they actually work.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I think they should not have used the word hologram, it leads to more confusion...

It is my understanding they mean that the universe contains 3D information in a 2D space (like the old flat 70's holograms from the end of the Logan's Run film). I don't think they mean a projected hologram created by a device (R2D2 style hologram).

This could simply be the structure of the universe (or likely a way to visualize abstract math in an attempt to understand the structure of the universe).

I believe it was originally conceived to account for the problem of entropy and black holes (if you remove entropy from the universe you screw up a lot of existing physics theories).

Either way I find it an interesting theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 

The thing is, hologram actually is a valid term.

The problem is the misconceptions about what a hologram actually is. Sort of like the misconceptions about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and particle/wave duality.


edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 


Everything that is existent in reality involves light, so you don't need any equipment to produce the effect the light produces the effect. That is the normal light waves that travel through every inch of the universe naturally is in itself the cause of the projection. Even the colors we see depend on that light, if the light variable is changed it's color produced changes too. Light particles and quantum particles in essence are very related in nature in that way. As explained in Through The Wormhole. Time doesn't exist as far as I am concerned and it is only made by us by observing the process of which the planets and objects around us proceed and therefore measure it and produce "Time" IN our minds to give relation to events, if we were not here to observe it, it wouldn't even exist. Observation, once again.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

ldyserenity
Time doesn't exist as far as I am concerned and it is only made by us by observing the process of which the planets and objects around us proceed and therefore measure it and produce "Time" IN our minds to give relation to events, if we were not here to observe it, it wouldn't even exist. Observation, once again.


Thats a bold statement! Though, I do think it is possible time doesnt exist in some mediums. As far as this universe is concerned though, I am pretty sure that if humans werent around the universe would still keep on spinning.

Our perception of anything is subjective, but that doesnt necessarily mean what is observed is explicitly defined/created by the observer in its totality.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Not if the universe doesn't proceed in a normal beginning/end cycle, if there is no beginning or end then time is irrelevant. I tend to think that the entire premise of the universe existing at all depends solely on observance, if there was nothing to observe it, I don't think it would exist so the true nature of time would be when something is observed and then created by observing [the universe]. It's not the only theory, obviously but it's the one I tend to agree with. But now we're delving into the philosophical.

There's no way of knowing if this is true because without observation then there is no way of knowing what really exists and as soon as bringing observation into it, then creates something to be observed, it's a conundrum. Once something is measured it exists, maybe it does exist outside of observation, but no one could ever know because once it is observed it is.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I think the implications are pretty obvious. If this is all just one big hologram or simulation, then there is indeed a creator behind it all. It also makes the existence of a Heaven and a Hell far more likely... does it not?


No. It does not necessarily mean that.

A "holographic" universe does NOT necessarily mean that it is a simulation, nor does it mean there is something/someone "running the holographic projector".

Saying that the universe is holographic simply means that what we perceive as 3 dimensional space is actually only 2 dimensions of information. This may simply be the true nature of reality itself, and not necessarily be a simulation -- i.e., nature itself may totally consits of 2-dimemnsional information (albeit it appears as 3 dimensions to us).

So in that case, there not need be a creator or higher force running everything. It's may just be the way nature is.


edit on 12/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Yes, its basically the old query of "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" or "If I suddenly step on a rock in my shoe, did it exist at all before I perceived it?"

I am of the opinion that it was there all along, just not included in our limited perspective. Which, does change the equation of what is happening in totality, and that does change how the variables manifest in that frame of time and space. But if one never stepped on the rock and it popped out of the shoe, its still there even though it was never observed in that time frame by sensory perception.

We dont have answers to it, really, though we are definitely starting to explore it more. I am of the mind that paradoxes only represent our limitations, and not that of the universe itself (which is why I am inclined to believe that things still move and change without sentient, limited observers).

This actually isnt all that OT either, its just different ways to look at the same topic being presented. Its gotta happen in some way, or we wouldnt be here to explore it in the first place! We will slap our limited interpretations on it to help explain it, but the math itself is what is critical to our future endeavors rather than our interpretation (observation) of it.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

teslahowitzer
I personally do not buy it, at all. the physics of space, mass, magnetics, gravity, and unlimited time and dimentions say something else. Why would this be the case anyway? why a cloak and curtain, there is nothing to hide...with that much sheer power move us to where the illusion would not be needed...there must be bigger fish to fry...


What we know ... the strength of the atomic forces depends is inversely proportional to the long range distance.

Gravity works on one over distance squared (1/d^2) . Double your distance from an object, and it's gravitational field decreases fourfold (start with d =1, then set d=2 )

Magnetism works over distance cubed (1/d^3). Double your distance from an object, and it's magnetic field decreases eightfold.

Then there are the subatomic forces, the weak force and the strong force that both reside entirely in the nucleus of an atom. They have even higher power rules - field strength = 1/d^6) . But these are insanely strong forces. These actually make it impossible to "pull apart" fundamental particles known as quarks (every particle we know of in the Standard Model is made from them), and extremely difficult to "smash apart" an atom".

en.wikipedia.org...

So there is a pattern here. The stronger the force, the higher the power equation, but the smaller the effective distance. But the standard model doesn't explain gravity, relativity, expansion of the universe, the speed of light. So there is still something missing.

In any other field of science, whenever there are two quantities that we know are related somehow, there is always a bit of mathematics that can be added to glue the pieces together.

A similar situation would be trying to explain a relationship between rainfall vs. soil erosion (landslides, flashfloods and waterfalls). We can look at climate data, and then we look at the geology of the ground.
In this example, it's the topology of the terrain (steep slopes, cliffs, valleys, plains) affecting water speed vs. the porosity and solubility of dirt or stones. Then everything fits together.

So there are all these ideas like string theory, holographic universes, n-branes, higher-dimensions, and some odd experiments that involve interference patterns, uncertainty, quantum states and probability.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
What if we are holograms living in a Master Hologram?



How Holographic Environments Will Work

electronics.howstuffworks.com...

Please be mindful that the sources that I provided are not validated by me. You're encouraged to do your own research. I'm posting these links for speculative dissucusion only.

Tootles!

Toni

edit on PM123120131220pm1231pm by Antoniastar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

Saying that the universe is holographic simply means that what we perceive as 3 dimensional space is actually only 2 dimensions of information. This may simply be the true nature of reality itself, and not necessarily be a simulation -- i.e., nature itself may totally consits of 2-dimemnsional information (albeit it appears as 3 dimensions to us).


So basically what you're telling me is that we're back to thinking the world is flat... like a page in a book?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Elton
I think they should not have used the word hologram, it leads to more confusion...

It is my understanding they mean that the universe contains 3D information in a 2D space (like the old flat 70's holograms from the end of the Logan's Run film).


Yes, except that it's not 3D to 2D but N-D to (N-1)-D for some larger value of D in some theory.

The word 'hologram' was technically suggestive for a good reason, but it has given this particular theory unusual and perhaps undeserved prominence in the layman's understanding.

What has actually happened is that a very insightful scientist found some relation between "toy models" of hypothetical physics which resolved some difficult theoretical problems by having the physics in 'higher dimensional' universe being described by other equations on a lower dimensional surface. It came out of thinking of what happens on the 'surface' of a black hole, and some theories of if quantum information is conserved or destroyed.

The problem is that this toy model of physics and other ones are far far over simplified compared to the actual physical universe that we know. Finding a 'holographic equivalent' of something close to the Standard Model is still quite far from being achieved. It's exceptionally difficult.

For a certain period of time, say from 1880 through maybe the 1970's or so it was a commonly accepted principle of meta-physics (and by this I mean in the literal sense of 'physics of physics' or being 'about the practice of physics' not some mystical mumbo jumbo) that elegant mathematics was a great guide towards finding good physics. If the math feels good, then there's a good chance you're on the right track.

It was maximally successful of course with the Maxwell equations and Einsteinian relativity, and then with group theories and symmetries in particle physics and quantum mechanics.

But then with symmetry breaking and now with the explosion of complexity in string theories and supersymmetry, more physicists (I presume younger ones) tend to believe that notion was a comforting but misleading illusion. With the large increase in the number of theorists and developments of mathematics, people now have made many mathematically beautiful theories which have turned out to be just plain wrong. Not wrong because the math was wrong or for any theoretically significant reason, just that experimental facts didn't go that way, for no good reason that we can tell.

The latest, and most serious casualty is supersymmetry. This idea has been in particle physics for 30 years and developed heavily (and is embedded in many string theories). It is very theoretically attractive and as a unifying principle fixes a number of problems. Except all the experimental tests at LHC and others have shown up absolutely nothing. The Standard Model is actually an ugly hack in places. String theory has turned out to be a theoretical nightmare with no guidance from mathematics which type of theory might be physically true.

Back to the holographic universe. It may be another example of awesome and insightful mathematics which turns out to be wrong.

The idea that we're in a simulation isn't anything so grand, it's just stupid.

edit on 22-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by Phage
 


Maybe this is a dumb question but why strings? What makes them think its all comprised of strings?


It's easy for cosmologists to imagine our universe as a two-dimensional piece of paper or stretchy rubber. Then you could punch holes through it and pull bits of thread through one hole and back through another. From the viewpoint of a 2D critter that lived in the plane of that sheet of paper, that bits of thread would just appear as a point in his/her world, much like atoms appear in ours. But this simple model also explains quantum entanglement. Pull or twist the thread at one point, and it moves or twists at another point simultaneously.

So there's this idea that particles could simply be bits of stringy chain-link that tie up together at random somewhere beyond our level of perception.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


So in other words they like the idea but don't have any solid reason to explain why they came to that conclusion?

I have been doing some reading on this and have caught a few good videos but none have explained why they think its strings or from what I have seen rubber bands. Well I get the basics at this point I don't really prescribe to the theory but at least I get what they are saying to some degree now.

Some of it makes sense to me as in it seems possible.... well anyway I am still reading up on the theory if you want to call it that seeing as how there isn't any evidence or way to test it as of yet.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join