Unification

15
Nov

Holograms, Black Holes, and the Nature of the Universe

You think you know what holograms are? Think again. Once restricted to credit cards, postcards, and the occasional magazine cover, holograms are taking a great cosmic leap thanks to a new hypothesis called the holographic principle.

The holographic principle, simply put, is the idea that our three-dimensional reality is a projection of information stored on a distant, two-dimensional surface. Like the emblem on your credit card, the two-dimensional surface holds all the information you need to describe a three-dimensional object—in this case, our universe. Only when it is illuminated does it reveal a three-dimensional image.

This raises a number of questions: If our universe is a holographic projection, then where is the two-dimensional surface containing all the information that describes it? What “illuminates” that surface? Is it more or less real than our universe? And what would motivate physicists to believe something so strange? That answer to the final question has to do with black holes, which turn out to be the universe’s ultimate information-storage devices. But to understand why, we will have to take a journey to the very edge of a black hole.

It doesn’t matter which black hole we choose, because each one looks essentially the same. Only a handful of qualities distinguish them: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Once an observer knows these three things about a black hole, he or she knows all that can be known. Whether the black hole contains the remains of a thousand dead stars, or all the lost socks from every Laundromat in the galaxy; whether it is a billion years old or was born yesterday; all of this information is lost and inaccessible in a black hole. No matter what is inside a black hole or how those innards are arranged, a black hole will “look” just the same.

This strange quality give black holes something that physicists call maximal entropy. Entropy describes the number of different ways you can rearrange the components of something—“a system”—and still have it look essentially the same. The pages of a novel, as Brian Greene points out, have very low entropy, because as soon as one page is out of place, you have a different book. The alphabet has low entropy, too: Move one letter and any four-year-old can tell something is wrong. A bucket of sand, on the other hand, has high entropy. Switch this grain for that grain and no one would ever know the difference. Black holes, which look the same no matter what you put in them or how you move it about, have the highest entropy of all.

Entropy is also a measure of the amount of information it would take to describe a system completely. The entropy of ordinary objects—people, sand buckets, containers of gas—is proportional to their volume. Double the volume of a helium balloon, for instance, and its entropy will increase by a factor of eight. But in the 1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein discovered that the entropy of a black hole obeys a different scaling rule. It is proportional not to the black hole’s three-dimensional volume but to its two-dimensional surface area, defined here as the area of the invisible boundary called the event horizon. Therefore, while the actual entropy of an ordinary object—say, a hamburger—scales with its volume, the maximum entropy that could theoretically be contained in the space occupied by the hamburger depends not on the volume of the hamburger but on the size of its surface area. Physics prevents the entropy of the hamburger from ever exceeding that maximum: If one somehow tried to pack so much entropy into the hamburger that it reached that limit, the hamburger would collapse into a black hole.

The inescapable conclusion is that all the information it takes to describe a three-dimensional object—a black hole, a hamburger, or a whole universe—can be expressed in two dimensions. This suggests to physicists that the deepest description of our universe and its parts—the ultimate theory of physics—must be crafted in two spatial dimensions, not three. Which brings us back to the hologram.

Theorists were intrigued by the idea that a parallel set of physical laws, operating in fewer dimensions, might be able to fully describe our universe. But probing that idea mathematically for our own universe was too daunting, so physicists began with a “toy” universe that is much simpler than the universe we live in: a universe with four spatial dimensions plus time, curved into the shape of a saddle. In 1997, the theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena showed that the mathematical description of this universe was identical to the description of a different kind of universe, one with three spatial dimensions, one time dimension, and no gravity. Maldacena’s discovery was the first concrete realization of the holographic principle, and it also made work easier for theorists, who now had two approaches available for every tricky math problem: They could choose to express the problem in the mathematics of the five-dimensional, gravitating universe, or they could opt for the four-dimensional, gravity-free version.

None of this adds up to “proof” that we are living in a hologram, but it does contribute to a body of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the laws of physics may in fact be written in fewer dimensions than we experience. That, combined with the mathematical utility of the holographic principle, is motivation enough for many physicists. The other questions with which we began this journey—Where is the surface on which our universe is inscribed? What illuminates it? Is one version of the universe more “real” than the other?—are still unresolved. But if the holographic principle is right, we may have to confront the notion that our universe is a kind of cosmic phantom—that the real action is happening elsewhere, on a boundary that we have not yet begun to map.

Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

FQXi: The Holographic Universe
Alex Maloney investigates the holographic principle.

Scientific American: The Holographic Principle
A brief introduction to the holographic principle.

University of California Television: The World as a Hologram
In this video, theoretical physicist Raphael Bousso provides an introduction to the holographic principle.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

kbecker-big

Kate Becker

    In a parallel universe, Kate Becker is senior researcher for NOVA and NOVA scienceNOW and a blogger for Inside NOVA. In this universe, she is your host here at The Nature of Reality, and it is her mission to blow your mind with physics. Kate studied physics at Oberlin College and astronomy at Cornell University. You can also follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

    • Catherinehey225

      ~ that is a lot to chew on in just one bite… lol ~ this is so facinating because it explains the space-time & the connection to gravity right…? i wish i had more time to study all of this… thankx for a clear and precise article that conveyed so much info… :) <3 Cat~ (: a.k.a. Catheirne :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/Kevin1111 Kevin McGee

      This hypothesis is not new, “The Holographic Universe” was published 20 years ago. And it’s a load of bollocks. PBS is giving too much respect to this crazy theory.

      • Sally

        You may be interested to know, then, that string theorist Juan Maldacena did an experiment which resulted in giving the first mathematical example of a holographic parallel universe. To quote Brian Greene’s Hidden Reality: “In a particular hypothetical setting, Maldacena’s result realized explicitly the holographic principle.” In a universe similar to ours, but shaped differently, the holographic principle works, and his math proves it. That’s not to say that’s what OUR universe is, but it is possible and is certainly not a “load of bullocks.”

        • http://twitter.com/samuelprime Samuel Prime

          It is one thing to say or show that one can encode 3-dimensional info in a 2-dim’l surface (such as a Riemann surface) mathematically — i.e., the holographic principle — and another thing to reify this 2D surface and take it as representing a literal physical object in the universe. That’s really my qualm.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=571226078 Dave LeBlanc

      loved it!!!!! new word for me Entropy!!!!!!! coool helps me understand things a lot better :)

    • Challa

      awesome explanation. thanks

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=516089154 Brent Seager

      Great article, black holes could possibly be a sort of “drain” that spits “dark” matter out on some sort of the opposite end of the string theory spectrum. The universe is somewhat like a 11 dimensional donut.

    • http://twitter.com/samuelprime Samuel Prime

      I’m going to gamble that this idea of hologram is false. Not only is the above analogy not a proof, but it’s quite dubious to generalize based on black holes. And further, the material on black holes, as impressive as they are (and backed with a celebrity status), are largely theoretical and have very little experimental basis for support. I think we should appreciate the huge degree to which all this is stuff is based on conjecture. Btw, I’m a mathematician who studied physics, so I’m at least somewhat informed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001224961073 Howard Buchholz

        I concur on all points. I think what is lost in all of this Nova stuff, is the concept of science as a discussion with multiple… even opposing, viewpoints.

        Another principle of science that is missing is the principle of commensurate evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary pedigrees from people who make them.

        • http://twitter.com/samuelprime Samuel Prime

          Thank you.

          • Larry Rosenthal

            I’m with you, and wondering, Are black holes three dimensional? That one stopped me cold. Did I miss something?

            • Anonymous

              Yes, 3-dimensional just like stars are 3D. However, the singularity inside a black hole is, I think, zero dimensional (Penrose proved every black hole contains a singularity). (All this at the theoretical level, so far as I can judge.)

            • Faux-tician-tist

              They were talking about surface area, FYI. *face palm*

            • Egfdfgdfg

              Cunt

      • Faux-tician-tist

        I’m going to gamble that you really aren’t a mathematician who has studied physics. If you had any degree you wouldn’t need to point out that an analogy isn’t a proof. The above article is without a doubt for the lay person and is meant to show the thought process that actual scientists used to see if this might be a possibility. Since you should be familiar with complex equations you should also know that nobody just sits down puts some figures on paper and later tries to determine if the equation means or represents anything. No, the exact opposite is true instead. Something real exists that we then try to represent with our equations. Anyway if you are a mathematician you are the dumbest smart person on the net. Good luck with that.

        • Liugasdf

          Wow, what a dick. I bet people love you.

        • Coolcat

          Interesting “Mr.Doomdays” …

          • Coolcat

            Haha I meant to say Doomday not Doomdays…..

            • Coolcat

              Hahaha Doomsday oh boy

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1657980080 Erin Levy

          I’m going to gamble that you are a fool.

    • http://twitter.com/iamhondo Joseph Shuster Sr

      “…and it is her mission to blow your mind with physics.”

      Mission accomplished! Maybe this is why we feel “flat” some days.

    • Iguadarrama9

      this article stirs up our imagination; we are so far from understanding the universe and all of its spin-offs – thanks for the article and please bring us more on this subject

    • http://www.facebook.com/MarcACram Marc Cram

      I design slot machines and entropy is big with our folk .. so are permutations and iterations .. you have touched my heart, thinking my existence may be just one giant pull of a cosmic slot machine and that the galactic hopper is a black hole.

    • daShehorn

      A very interesting expansion on Mark Twain’s theories in “The Mysterious Stranger” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3186/3186-h/3186-h.htm

    • Gullit

      “Whether the black hole contains the remains of a thousand dead stars, or all the lost socks from every Laundromat in the galaxy; whether it is a billion years old or was born yesterday; all of this information is lost and inaccessible in a black hole. No matter what is inside a black hole or how those innards are arranged, a black hole will “look” just the same.”

      What about the information lying on the surface of the black hole ?
      If our universe is just a projection, there must be something to project from, and if this information is on the surface of the black hole, it’s accessible, as well as things that fall into the black hole ( this information is stored on its surface ), so that we can “reconstruct” them, if that is true ( and that is a BIG if ) it should matter what “is” into the black hole.

    • Amorgansupport

      Seth Speaks material: I’m immensely curious as to whether any physics gurus (other than amateur physicist Michael Talbot) have read the Seth Material, written back in the 60′s, and the author’s explanation of the nature of reality. Watching the NOVA series, I am hearkened back many times to that material. These books discuss the nature of our physical (and spiritual) reality, that seem to coincide well with recent theories. I’d love to know the opinion’s of physicists of the material in these books.

      • Sharona

        I’m a physicist from the UK and have studied both traditional physics and the Seth Material. There is much we do not yet know about the physical universe, especially the ‘why’. The theories put forward in the Seth Material do seem to go some way to explaining the knowledge gaps and are, in my opinion inline with the direction that current theories are taking. I do think that there is a considerable learning curve, so we can only evolve current theories, draw upon the seth material for inspiration and hope to find a breakthrough that advances our current belief framework.

        • http://moonbirth-godbirth.com/ Ron Anderson

          I would like interaction with a physicist or 3 and I have read most of the Seth Jane Roberts works and more than once. I took it to heart and progressed my own private studies using Jane’s techniques into an 80,000 file project before I stopped counting. I long ago made a significant discovery and still can’t find relevant science people willing to explore what I found.

          In short, I discovered a simple holographic process that will turn satellite imagery of earth into virtual images that all concur with one process and their positions in it – moonbirth!

          Earth and moon hold residual imagery of the process of the birth of our moon and continents, and regardless of all earth and space theory and ‘fact’ implying it is not possible. You can make these holograms off just about any reflected surface including organic materials, sand, cloud, ice snow, vegetation. Anybody at all want to finally start discovering the real nature of the world we consider we know…???

          I wasted years emailing scientists without even polite replies and finally put the bones of it all online until somebody finally wants to discover truth instead of current earth and space myth on the topic. If you want to become that somebody just google ‘moonbirth godbirth’ and email me there/here.

          I hope the gif image layers in my Google Earth hologram show? I’ve made maybe 10,000 of them. I’m only noticing this site in passing. If they don’t plenty on my site do. I was looking for Kate’s email address, perhaps she will respond with some interest there?

          • http://moonbirth-godbirth.com/Thumbnails_Fractals_made_visible_01.html Ron Anderson

            The gif doesn’t seem to work so here is another layer from the same image. To understand it, a meteor passed through earth beneath what became Asia evicting Australia toward its current positon.

            ALL continents and moon can be shown to concur with this trajectory and can be photographically aligned and placed at or near their actual birth positions during the event. You can learn the simple process on my site.

            The fact that these images are absolutely true means physics is still at the start. So is earth and space science! These are true holograms and they oppose particle physics theory as we currently learn it. They do not rely on residual land positions.

            I think these virtual images are related to shockwave polarized fractal forms at the interface between light and matter. Fractals I have also photographically highlighted and identified across all earth and space imagery. These holograms are very color sensitive and limitless information about the cataclysm is still available in pristine condtion.

    • Jmichalsbr

      Wait a minute–is there anything actually ” inside” a black hole in the first place? Doesn’t time dilation in its vicinity mean that everything that has ever fallen into the event horizon is simply frozen there, time having effectively stopped (from our point of view)? If so, the interior really IS the surface!

      • Blu 2005

        If you were in a black hole and some how got out per each second day week you dived it 0.And get super big number that will need as many time lines as the the unit you have.

        ex if you start with 5 sec then you will get 5/0 and will need 5 time lines to see how sec went by you get a number more or less than the time that did go by but it works.

        • Blu 2005

          LOl I made it up

    • Swedish Panake

      If we are all projections from a two dimensional plane, should women stop worrying about being too flat?

    • Anonymous

      Might one suppose that a string’s vibration is its information, and that a string may not be torn asunder at the event horizon but only ceases to vibrate..

    • Anonymous

      Is the following a wrong interpretation of the double slit experiment?

      In “Quantum Leap” on NOVA on Nov 23 by Brian Greene, there was a bowling alley double slit setup using single electrons as bowling balls.

      Try this scenario of that bowling alley. If one electron can go through both slits, at the same time, let’s increase the number of slits from 2 to n. That electron should be able to pass through all n slits. No matter how large the number n is.

      Next we will bring in spacetime complementarity. And remind ourselves that space and time in spacetime work in such a way that the larger one component gets the smaller the other becomes.

      Now let’s say the number n is so large that the first slit is near one edge of the universe, and the last slit near the other edge. This would mean the space component in spacetime is immense. Which suits us just fine. As the time it takes an electron to go through all the slits at the same intant is, well, instantaneous. Meaning time is very small, just when space becomes very large.

      If this thought experiment is not unreasonable, it may reflect what happens to Einstein’s spacetime when it enters the quantum world?

      • Anonymous

        What an interesting question. You can indeed imagine a slit experiment with arbitrarily many slits. Check out this post from Flip Tanedo on how such an experimental set-up can be used to motivate Richard Feynman’s “path integral” formulation of quantum mechanics:

        http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2009/12/11/the-double-slit-experiment-summing-over-paths/

        As for the implications for spacetime, you’ve got me there!

        • Anonymous

          Thank you, Kate.  I read Tanedo’s write-up and it was very helpful.   It would be nice if we could get some expert help on the spacetime question.
          To see if it is reasonable to postulate that Einstein’s spacetime does change in that fashion (i.e., space expands exponentially as time correspondingly shrinks way down), when trying to squeeze itself down into the tiny quantum world?

    • Mott Phys

      think in universes of n-dimensions,and several shapes,is impossivel to think as space(geometrical) and time( that only get mesure motion of bodies,without know really what is in movement or in rest in the universe.is imagine as einstein ib its equations obtained the connection of spaceand time in spacetime continuos,in 4-dimensions.How place the time shaping the three-dimension of space.then could to think the universe with two torsions:left-right handed of a chiral model to dimensions major than 4,because 4-dimensions must have torsions,is not completelly smooth.these deformations of spacetime
      or that connect space and time are of noncommutative topological and geometry.

    • birdgard

      r.e. black holes. Why does a black hole have to contain anything…be a vessel? Can’t the event horizon be the point at which the mass of an object is accelerated to the speed of light and destroyed? With energy as the by product. Like a nuclear reaction? {Excuse my lame terms…I’m not a physicist). There’s Hubble images of black holes emitting gamma rays out of it’s perpendicular axis. Hence, the mass that crosses the event horizon is converted to energy (gamma rays). Supporting Einstein’s theory of conservation of mass an energy. And this is the process how neutron stars die, energy is dispersed, cools to gasses and gasses eventually “come together” and start forming a new star? Supporting the idea, as suggested by the discovery of certain radio waves that are older that the 13.7 billion years of the universe. Suggesting that the Universe itself is perpetually expanding, then destroying itself with a “big bang”, and then staring the recycling process over again. Infinitely.

      • Mhom

        I would recommend looking up quasars. They occur when the supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy begin absorbing their accretion disk (the galaxy). As the matter condenses towards the black hole, there is immense friction, enough to propel massive jets of matter and light.

    • Anonymous

      I worry that the financial geniuses of the world got away with explanations like this to profit in the derivatives market: “a black hole obeys a different scaling rule. It is proportional not to the black hole’s three-dimensional volume but to its two-dimensional surface area, defined here as the area of the invisible boundary called the event horizon.”

    • Hakuin Suso

      Where is the two-dimensional surface containing all the information that describes it? What “illuminates” that surface? Is it more or less real than our universe?

      These questions may have stunning answers. For example, the question of what illumines the surface can be rephrased to, “Does consciousness, i.e, the observer, illuminate the surface?” There’s little doubt that in our individual experience the world is “illuminated” by our own consciousness. And although we may assume that world exists independent of consciousness, there is no way to determine the truth of that statement through perceptual or conceptual modes of knowing.

      And if consciousness is the illuminator, then could we also not postulate that the “surface” being illuminated is what stands opposite the observor? And phrase that to mean, there is an observer which is the subjective pole of consciousness and a world of experience which stands opposite to it as the objective pole of consciousness.

      But whether subjective or objective, both poles are consciousnesss, meaning consciousness is the fundamental reality of the universe.

      As to whether it is more or less real, that really depends on whether you can accept consciousness as the fundemental reality. If you can’t, then the illuminated two-dimensional surface is nothing more than a dream. While “our universe” is something we’re all asleep and dreaming in.

      • Spyentist

        Think of it this way. The universe is like a computer screen. It refreshes once every 10×10^-34 seconds. Our reality is on the surface of the screen, but to us it looks like as though we are the computer user looking at the screen at the representation of the graphics on the screen which appear to be 3 dimensional.

        Now to get real: the universe (aka the computer screen) is a sphere which is only 2d. Repeat the surface of the sphere is 2d. Now what is possible is that the universe’s volume IS a blackhole. If that were the case then the surface of that blackhole would contain all the information about what is inside. We don’t exactly exist inside the blackhole but on its surface. And the reason its a hologram is because our existance is 2d but experienced by us in 3d.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-King/1130538629 Jesse King

          Exactly, the reason the article suggests that the black hole is two-dimensional (not three) is because it is describing it as a Sphere with no VOLUME – there is no ‘inside’ a black hole.

          That ‘interior’ space doesn’t even exist as a vacuum, because the extreme warping of space has effectively created a bubble of ‘not there’.

          Now of course, there’s the matter of the holographic projection of the dense two dimensional data on the surface of the black hole (sphere), if you were ‘in’ that you could be said to be ‘inside’ the black hole, but it’s a very different definition of the word than we would normally use.

          It would be more akin to saying you that you were ‘inside a computer simulation’ than ‘inside a room’. Also, you won’t be leaving. ;)

      • Weeman117

        Let me swing a shovel at your head, see how much of a hologram you are. Lol

    • http://twitter.com/rudolfhendrique Rudolfhendriques

      The lightspeed is the zeropoint of space time. The holografic universe only exists in our brain. Light is a trail leading into the past time and space..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kff8EBJ3Qo

    • Hakuin Suso

      I’ve been waiting to comment on “Who Let the Cat out of the Bag?” By Sarah Charley. As that comment section just asks to me wait I thought I’d enter my thoughts here, then move on.

      Ms. Charley writes, “The only language that bridges the two different worlds–quantum and classical, 2-D and 3-D–is mathematics.”

      I like this introduction of dimensions into the measurement problem, as I’ve always found it easier to think of subatomic particles as “things” existing outside of our normal conception of space/time.

      To borrow from Gestalt Psychology, Frirz Pearls once envisioned personality as a ball bobbing up and down in the sea. At any given time an observer could only see one part of a person’s entire personality while the rest laid hidden in the dark waters. Similarity, physicists can only “see” one of momentum or position as the particle in question “bobs” into our world from another, higher dimension because, for some reason, particles cannot exist in entirety in our world.

      This way of looking at subatomic particles provides a simple way to look at entanglement.

      When two particles become entangled and one is then observed or measured, the other’s state will be affected no matter what the distance between the two particles. When conceiving of this “action at distance” in terms of ordinary space/time it seems impossible. But if one thinks of the entangled pair as existing in a higher dimension then things become clearer.

      Consider that a two dimensional space can be immediately comprehended by a third dimension. For example, if you and a friend have been living on a flat surface in a heavily wooded area you wouldn’t know what’s through the forest ahead. But if you could fly or leap high enough into the air you may see that beyond is a lake or bear or a physicist. Your new perspective allows you to see what your old, 2 dimensional perspective would not. Likewise, were your friend and the physicist to look up at the same time they’d both be able to see you but from different angles.

      Now if particles existed in a higher dimension such that we can only see a part of them at a time, then entanglement can be viewed as two particles that come together and although they seem to part company, “stay together in a higher dimension”. One particle existing in a higher dimension when viewed by a lower, can be “seen” by two observers who are separated over a great distance in the lower dimension. If one observer then measures what appears as one particle of two, then the other observer will note the corresponding effect on what he believes to be the second particle. Yet all along what’s observed is the same “thing”, existing in a higher dimension, yet thought of a two things separated by great distance.

      Any way. Conceiving of particles this way makes the whole measurement problem easier for me to comprehend. But, of course, that doesn’t mean I necessarily explained it all that well, here.

      • Mott Phys

        the black holes in great part is localized in the 3-D,but it event horizon can be perceived in 2-D,but the singularity or beyond of the event horizons are the the extradimensions that contain in 4-D nd others
        extradimensions,where the singularity does part.there are multiples
        event horizons beyond our continuity of spacetime observed of the earth.then the informations of the black holes must appear of the
        quantic vacuum that creat virtual particles,creating holes in the spacetime-this is calculed by uncertain principles,because there are
        others wavefunction that are small that the planck’s constant..the informations could be contained in several multiples universes.then the quantic informations are conserved globally.they are lost for some instant into of the spacetime,but are restaured in others spacetime.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-King/1130538629 Jesse King

          I’m pretty sure that in this model, there is no singularity as such, as the black hole has no interior. There would be no space there at all. The event horizon IS the black hole in its entirety.

          On the flip side, one could also accurately say that the event horizon IS the singularity, because it has no volume.

          The black hole is visible (sorta) to us in three dimensions as a sphere, but it is a one-sided object (it only has an outer surface, no inner surface or volume), which gives it properties similar to a singularity in some respects, but different in others because it can be expressed in our 3 dimensional space without breaking quite as many rules.

          At that point we would probably call them ‘black spheres’, as black hole would give an inaccurate connotation of its structure.

    • Iraqowns

      It sounds like the NSF should lay off funding drug addicts, blacks and women.

      How many people will die from HIV and cancer because money was wasted on this?

    • Logosbruce

      So what if we take this further, infact all the way. So the two dimentional universe which describes the three dim. universe exists within itself just as a plane or square exists within a cube, then suppose that that two dim. universe is described by a one dimensional universe as a plane is described and contains a line……the line or one dimensional universe is then described by what…a point………we get right back to singularity out of which the big bang originates….creation if there is such a thing must have occured as a movement from singularity to plurality.

    • Davidmac

      I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this theory as it is thought to explain the Universe. It has too much of a contrived feel that relies on the fantasies of movies. I do believe that there is some truth to the idea that the Universe is more of an impression of reality rather than physically solid. This is due to the nature of matter being mostly empty space rather than to anything else. This theory is another attempt to circumvent accepting that the Standard Model is simply wrong and needs replaced.

    • photo-guy

      This kind of thinking horse manure. For one.., I’ve found there are many now.., including myself.., who believe there is no such thing as ‘time’ in the cosmos. It is our imagination and simply a measuring tool. But we have let it run wild and start to run things… It is an imagined quantity now IN the calculations that are suggesting or ‘proving’ other imagined quantities… Not just to measure things anymore… It has created space/time, time dilation, folded space, holograms, worm holes.., and the craziness goes on. Take time OUT of the picture and you instantly get rid of it all…

      Then we can all proceed in a sane and orderly manner to the theory of everything. As we should have done long ago, had not Einstein brought time into it in such a big way…

      Here’s my detail on the matter. I’m photo-guy..
      http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=32016

    • Anonymous

      See, what’s really two-dimensional is the thinking of whomever wrote this and decided not to try to explain what in the hell they’re talking about.

      Sorry, too tired to try to determine if worth re-reading, but somehow I doubt it is.

    • Star-silver

      Does this tie in to Bohm’s theory of implicate order?

    • dicks

      Wow that’s retarded. Anyone can make some bullshit idea about what the universe truly is. I can say that this is just a game for simulating life. That doesn’t make it true

    • Pingback: The only time now, is party time, are we clear? » The Paraverse

    • http://twitter.com/RandomRainbow11 Kiwi/Rainbow

      Can someone explain this in English? lol I’m sorry I’m sick and my brain’s kind of dead right now so I got kind of lost…

    • Netela2

      Well I’m a marine and i say fuck this hooorahhh!!!

    • Zacksnofear

      This article needs to give credit to Michael talbot and David Bohm

    • http://twitter.com/Haiyay haiyay

      Here is what I think: If we accept the universe to be a hologram, we should be ready to accept other realities, that universe with infinity is a possibility and if so, then the dimensions are more than just two, hence, the reality is mre than we can handle, we can get to know it all; Hence Hilbert was probably wrong when he declared that “We must know and that we will know”

      Probabyl kantor, and Godel were right, and even Einstein hinted at this, that “The true nature of things, that,.. we will never know”

    • http://muckrack.com/dotcommodity Susan Kraemer

      What great writing. Thanks, you made it clear. Can’t say I find it plausible, but I know I’m no astrophysicist/mathematician.

      • Tom Severovich

        Everything seems phenomenal.

    • Parul734

      Really an amazing and intriguing blog post. Thanks for sharing the research and ideas. Students like me get to learn a lot from this. Just to even see what kind of ideas are there.

    • Azeezanq8

      So technicly we all live in a world like those old mario arcade games awsome :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001330218283 Shawn Wilson

      life is real

    • Ronald

      The Amber-series by Roger Zelazny.
      Just saying.

    • Sergio Lopezjr

      This is actually a very interesting post. I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that our world may be a 3rd dimension of a flat surface. How could billions and billions of galaxys just be a ‘hologram’? Makes people believe things arent real in our dimension. Either way the mystery of the universe may never be solved. Specially if the theory of ‘A Black Hole in the middle of every galaxy’ is true. #MindFucked! Lol

    • Jsd9870

      Greatest simplified explanation of entropy I’ve ever heard. personally, I believe in simulation theory. It explains everything and the odds are overwhelming. Look it up and see for yourself if you’re interested.

    • Pingback: The Holographic Principle | Zazen Life

    • KUKI

      This
      universe is NOT a clockwork as contended by Newton. Newtons classical
      physics holds good only for what that can be sensed by the 5 human
      senses, like the rotten apple falling on his head, NOT the
      sub-atomic world.

      There is a
      deep connection between consciousness and matter. The quantum double
      slit experiment has shown that a measured electron can appear either as a
      particle or a wave, but NOT both at the same time.

      The Bible
      says that the universe is only thousands of years old. While Vedanta
      and the modern quantum theory agrees that it is around 15 billion years.

      You can
      bypass these great distances by using your consciousness via worm holes.
      Considering that all physical matter is constructed of quantum points
      of possibility, we are energy waves not particles.

      We live
      in a time obstructed world using 5 senses — and also a timeless realm
      in the quantum dimension, where what you see is NOT what you get..
      The
      cosmos is made of events of the mind. The act of observation bonds the
      observer and the observed. Anything you observe becomes part of your
      reality. All things are connected and act as a single organism. This
      connection is undiminished by time and space. An action at one end of
      the universe is this felt at the other.

      Quantum
      rules does not care for Newton’s third law, which states that every
      action has an equal and opposite reaction. Quantum rules dictate
      that every action has a multitude of reaction possibilities.

      The brain
      receives info about its surroundings in space. After comparing new
      information with old memory, the brain sends it on via quantum
      connection to the dimensions that await its information. The brain needs
      REM sleep
      In
      Vedanta of 9000 BC, it is called Akasha, which was explained to Tesla
      by the Indian mystic Swami Vivekanda. The space between the electrons ,
      which gave free energy to the perpetual motion of the electrons , which
      prevent them from falling into the nucleus, is called Akasha or Ether or
      Zero point field. The ancient Vedic sages on the banks of the
      river Saraswati ( 9000 BC to 4000 BC ) did NOT need to do
      Mathematical calculations on paper–they could do it 1000 times faster
      in their great minds . Imagine Vivekananda came all the way to USA to
      meet super genius scientist Nikola Tesla on strict instructions from his
      Guru, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who did NOT understand English.
      As
      per Vedanta we are essentially holographic energy beings
      existing in a state of resonance with the scalar field of the cosmos.

    • Corey Birsner

      it is a very hard thing to rap my head arownd but the more I look into it the more it seems plosible I dont Know what it means for the fucher dut it might have a signifacent change in how we view the world today

    • Corey Birsner

      So maybe the earth realy is flat and the people that bleived it were right they were just way ahead of there time I’m going to change my name to stanley now.

    • Commenter88

      Although the particulars are different (which we have just learned is aonly entropy), this is not really an original theory. More like an ever-expanding idea of the Platonic ideal, (are ideas already imprinted informationally in black holes, and if so is the platonic ideal of platonic idealism in the black hole or merely on the event horizon as manifestation of yet another platonic ideal? Are there never ending mirrors between the event horizon and the inside surface?)?

      You know what entropy is? It’s Greek civilization that anciently was the imprimatur of really pretty much all subsequent ideas, but in the modern age cannot figure out how to even budget its economy.

    • Henrique

      Congratulations for the excellent article. Now I feel somewhat confortable to read more advanced texts. You did a very good dummy introduction to the subject. Thank you!

    • JD

      http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/afpez/a_single_sperm_has_375mb_of_dna_information_in_it/

      Yes black holes are a storage device, but in retrospect to
      what modern science believes. our
      universe is built from positive matter

      and what is known as anti matter is basically black
      holes. this means that there are more
      black holes percentage wise compared with

      matter that we can observe.
      The outside of our universe is negative and the interior positive, the
      outer of the black hole negative

      and the interior positive, but that’s debatable.

      What this shows is that the universe is no longer expanding
      and is contracting, which will increase at a dramatic rate. However as

      time is relative to our own perception we can’t practically
      measure a noticeable change although scientists believe that radio

      Signatures from space are proving this to be true.

      People always believe that the older they become the less
      time they have and that the days pass quicker, is this an illusion or the

      Truth and a sign of the reversal to a singularity? Well as the data flows through the black
      holes the universe slowly collapses to a singularity and then nothing, except
      it’s reversed and is on the other side of a black hole. Black holograms and
      projections I don’t understand but maybe this is what they were trying to get
      at.

      it’s widely proven that information cannot be lost and that
      the surface of a black hole contains a representation of the data it

      has consumed. I believe
      this to be a reflection of the interior projected outwards and that all data
      consumed, (yes data) is

      converted into a reverse state on the other side of the
      hole. It is torn up in a negative state
      in which all data is ripped apart

      into the pieces that the particles are constructed.

      Like a cell divides, when a star collapses and eventually
      create a black hole the gravity field is to immense for the fabric of our

      space time and create an opening into which the information
      is siphoned off. This was the big band
      and what started our universe an

      many other ones of which we don’t yet now.

      Before our universase a mother universe existed in which the
      gateway opened in an explosion of infomation/data and acted like the

      large hardron collider in smashing all the incoming
      unconstructed/unformed pieces, which eventually formed the structures of
      carbon,

      helium, hydrogen, etc.
      As it expends the particles map all areas and create a multilevel grid
      on which combined particles such as

      planets would sit.

      Like a computers hard drive, it uses multiple levels of data
      which connect seamlessly and are accessible in multiple directions. The

      universe is basically a quantum computer which has structures
      similar to neural pathways. It contains
      intelligence an we as humans

      are on a scale undetectable, similarly beyond the levels of
      what we can observe in the smallest particles.

      Is the universe a storage device for A god or entity, I
      would strongly consider the possibility but we were not part of the plan

      and are merely and after effect and possibly an error which
      consumes and distorts the usage, which may be irradiated in the future

      once we are realised.

      Storage device or/and a computer with intelligence and the
      container in which it is stored is connected to others like a network

      array of servers in a data centre. Could a universe with different physical
      dynamics exist on a computers hard drive.
      Possibly but

      we wouldn’t even be able to detect it because it’s using
      completely different physics that don’t exist in our universe on a quantum

      scale. Hard drives encode data using electro magnetics and
      use atomic particles, therefore is should be possible that life could

      exist on an immeasurable scale. Hard drive data loss could be the equivalent
      to black holes in our universe, a bad sector could

      represent the same thing.
      As we know data cannot be lost as it goes against what we know in
      physics, everything converts into a

      different state.

    • odyssoma

      The standard explanation for mapping an n dimensional space onto an n-1 dimensional surface necessarily requires the loss of an arbitrarily large amount of information. This is apparent from the (to me questionable, but at present canonical) limit of the recording surface as one bit per Planck area. This, taken together with the amount of information contained in the n dimensional “original,” leaves us with the difference between the number of spaces (Planck limited) available in an n dimensional structure versus the number of spaces available on the n-1 dimensional surface.

      If it were not for the Planck limitation, the orders of infinity available in n dimensions versus n-1 dimensions would be equal, as implied by the paradox of Hilbert’s Grand Hotel. That is, as (I believe) Cantor also demonstrated, the number of real points on a line is equal to the number of points in a surface. However, once the Planck limit is imposed, the number of points in, for example, a three dimensional object is far greater than the number of points in a two dimensional surface which contains its hologram. I suppose this objection can be met by removing the plane to an arbitrary distance, so that it becomes large enough to have a number of Planck points equal to those of its contained 3D object, but this starts to smack of ad hoc requirements. Perhaps more importantly, the removal distance involved would seem to prohibit liminal communication between the hologram and any sufficiently complex object. At this point, we must think very carefully of whether the hologram principle is literal or metaphorical.

    • desbest

      How is it possible for a 3d image to be represented on a 2d surface? I cannot do the same with a paper and room. I can only draw part of the room.

    • Cooper

      If black holes project holograms as what we perceive to be reality, then is it possible that since there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy, that our reality is being projected from the center of the black hole located in the center of our very own galaxy?

    • Lochandubh

      Ok, ok , ok…………Iv’e got one………
      What would you rather beans on toast forever ………..or
      anything you like but a limited lifespan.?

    • Lochandubh

      Or, What if I am God ?
      And nothing exists , it is all in my fertile imagination and I am just sitting in space thinking up all of this ?
      If I die , then you all die .
      Because you only exist in my mind ,not in reality.
      Every single thing that has ever existed from cheese to silk pants and rectal warts to Bing Crosby its just all in my imagination ?
      So BEHAVE!! or I will stop thinking about you and then where will you all be eh ?
      Well ?
      Ha , see , that’s better .
      Oh and by the way forget all this Sunday or Saturday stuff IT’S 3AM on a Tues or nothing……………..that’s when I like to be worshipped :)

    • Squageli Rigatoni Stringozzi

      WTF?

    • FTW

      @Cuntsniffer, Would you be kind and throw yourself into a black whole ? You’re a waste!