Why Government Researchers Think We May Be Living in a 2D Hologram

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Government researchers believe we are living in a 2D hologram? What? Is this guy on to something or just on something?

It sounds completely off-the-walls insane, but the incongruities between Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and some of Max Planck's discoveries about the nature of matter can only be explained if we're living in a Matrix-style holographic illusion, according to Craig Hogan, director of the Department of Energy's Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics.
Click to expand...
 
Or, a theory is just a theory, you use it until it no longer explains what is seen and you move on to a new one.
 
What if we are all created by a supreme being? And what we see is dictated by that being. And that the being has these "angels" that guides us and oversee what we do. Also it sets forth a set of rules for which we are to obey.

No, not religion.....I'm talking about The Matrix. :D
 
jpm100 said:
Or, a theory is just a theory, you use it until it no longer explains what is seen and you move on to a new one.
Click to expand...

yes and no. We didn't throw out Newtonian physics when Einstein formulated special relativity. Relativity reduces to newtonian physics in a limiting case (small velocity compared to the speed of light).

Any additional physics lurking in the universe would have to reduce to Einsteinian physics / quantum mechanics, since both theories are manifestly true in at least some limit.
 
I am liking my 2D holographic world!! No robots have killed us all.. yet!!

burnout.gif
 
I clicked on the link hoping to see a government spokesperson with one eye. :D
 
big problem with their experiment: any natural vibrations (say from a truck passing by) will definitely skew the results. It will be very difficult to separate the signal from the noise.

The only way I could see this experiment being feasible is in outer space.
 
The more we uncover about the universe the stranger it becomes. This will only increase in the future. There is still no reconciliation between Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics. They contradict each other in many ways yet no one comes out with an asinine statement like the one issued above. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since it came from a government entity.
 
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. Instead of fixing the theories themselves, come up with some bullshit about a holographic projection. Riiiight. You have fun with that.
 
jpm100 said:
Or, a theory is just a theory, you use it until it no longer explains what is seen and you move on to a new one.
Click to expand...
But just to add that a theory is essentially FACT, unlike a hypothesis. A theory isn't just a random guess, but a "complicated fact" that stands up to all scientific scrutiny and answers all problems and questions thrown at it without any error which would invalidate the theory.

This surely isn't a theory, its just a hypothesis as it doesn't have enough supporting evidence unlike say the theory of gravity.
 
jpm100 said:
Or, a theory is just a theory, you use it until it no longer explains what is seen and you move on to a new one.
Click to expand...
Or you do like has been done more than once before...cling to the theory as if it were proven science...and continue to promote it as if it were. :(
 
I have a theory, it states that whatever created the universe, created humans to be a muppet show for entertainment.
 
Travolta said:
a muppet show for entertainment.
Click to expand...
I wonder where they get the most jollies... from war, love or shows like the kardashions (ie, maybe they just like watching us eat and poop)
 
spintroniX said:
yes and no. We didn't throw out Newtonian physics when Einstein formulated special relativity. Relativity reduces to newtonian physics in a limiting case (small velocity compared to the speed of light).

Any additional physics lurking in the universe would have to reduce to Einsteinian physics / quantum mechanics, since both theories are manifestly true in at least some limit.
Click to expand...
Newtonian physics has very little theory and is more an empiracal observation of behavior of inertia and force. Its still used because the math is way easier and 99.999% of the time the speeds with which the world works around us, Newtonian Physics still sufficiently describes what happens with enough accuracy to engineer with it.
 
Well at least they're getting warmer. If Einstein is correct, only one center (and therefore origin, according to the theories of spacetime relativity) is possible in the universe, and it's within each observer. So there is no "the universe", it's not an external thing into which one is plopped at conception. This errant cosmology is still popular, despite Einstein, and even among astrophysicists and others who should know better, and is what relegates people to perpetual victims of the universe instead of proper co-creators of it.
 
jpm100 said:
Newtonian physics has very little theory and is more an empiracal observation of behavior of inertia and force. Its still used because the math is way easier and 99.999% of the time the speeds with which the world works around us, Newtonian Physics still sufficiently describes what happens with enough accuracy to engineer with it.
Click to expand...

Yet it is still a theory, that is how science works.

This is a theory, if you read the actual fermi lab documentation, it does little to mention holograms. They are talking about the expression of space and time on a quantum level, it has tested out on paper (mathmatically, hence now a theory rather than hypothysis). This experiment is to test the theory. Much like the theory of supersymmetry and multiverse where tested by the LHC.
 
GOVERNMENT researchers?

That's like saying people working for NASA are GOVERNMENT researchers, why not say "Fermilab researchers..." might actually give it a bit more credential and less people would throw it off as "gubbamint giving out more freeshit damn leeches!"
 
jpm100 said:
Newtonian physics has very little theory and is more an empiracal observation of behavior of inertia and force. Its still used because the math is way easier and 99.999% of the time the speeds with which the world works around us, Newtonian Physics still sufficiently describes what happens with enough accuracy to engineer with it.
Click to expand...

All science is observational in nature including Einsteins relativity and string theory. They are the results of observations of nature, and a model created around that. But the model is just a simulation of the real thing.

It doesn't explain why things are or if the model will remain steady stable and correct.

As to the experiment I would have to read it more in detail. At NASA we built high altitude atmosphere probes with interferometers in them to look for waves. We also had one on ground level. The sensitivity of the instrument required us to it on a building with a granite pillar base and to set the interferometer up on a massive granite table with damping feet on the ground level. If they are planning on scaling that up (and I would have to look at the experiment more closely) I would hate to see the actions they have to take to measure their subatomic waves.
 
Apologies for the double post, but this kind of thing irks me because its the same BS that religions pull to preserve their power and status, which hampers advancement and stifles our understanding. The long term effect of that is extinction.

All scientific fact is nothing more than theory, theory means it holds up to testing and observation. When theory fails, most are discarded, some are kept around because they still prove useful in testing our observations, like Newtonian Physics. It has failed, but the failure is so acute, that it is irrelevant to the average person. The point of this is that in trying to understand the strangeness of our universe, we need to be extremely flexible and intelligent, so we designed a system that fundamentally questions everything, including things we think we know. There maybe a theory that will reconcile all the problems between quantum physics, relativity and Newtonian physics that we have yet to discover, it is entirely possible that we may not be smart enough.
 
no they arent on something.

this isnt exactly a new concept - the idea that position of information (matter) in 3d space can be represented in a 2d flat plane (hologram). it helps to think that when you have a hologram card of a persons face, say, you can turn the card edge on and you can see it has no depth to it - you are clearly dealing with a 2d object - but looking at the hologram itself you can see the 3d representation 'coded' in it.

its a bit different and quite a lot more complicated in this case, but as Aireoth said its a concept of expression of time and space - already mathematically investigated. 'the matrix' for me is a pretty poor choice of words but its one that is probably easiest for people to grasp, so i can understand the reportage there.

as i say not really new - Ars technica have covered this concept before - all the way back in 2011: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram/
 
jpm100 said:
Or, a theory is just a theory, you use it until it no longer explains what is seen and you move on to a new one.
Click to expand...

Exactly;

It sounds completely off-the-walls insane, but the incongruities between Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and some of Max Planck's discoveries about the nature of matter can only be explained if we're living in a Matrix-style holographic illusion, according to Craig Hogan, director of the Department of Energy's Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics.
Click to expand...

This statement in the article is true, but it is also false because there might be something fucked up about one of these theories which would really fuck up this guy's conclusion. Personally it would thrill me to no end to hear that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was actually flawed. Really it would, I'd laugh my ass off :p
 
DigitalGriffin said:
All science is observational in nature including Einsteins relativity and string theory. They are the results of observations of nature, and a model created around that. But the model is just a simulation of the real thing.
Click to expand...
I think you're a bit confused. Einstein's relativity was based on theoretical research, that's fancy speak for a bunch of math shit thrown together on a chalkboard, it was only much later after the theory was published that observation evidence actually confirmed it. And string theory? Really misnamed, it should be called String Hypothesis, AFAIK there is not a single version that actually works completely, and all theories I've heard about operate on size scales so small they are impossible to observe.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I think you're a bit confused. Einstein's relativity was based on theoretical research, that's fancy speak for a bunch of math shit thrown together on a chalkboard, it was only much later after the theory was published that observation evidence actually confirmed it. And string theory? Really misnamed, it should be called String Hypothesis, AFAIK there is not a single version that actually works completely, and all theories I've heard about operate on size scales so small they are impossible to observe.
Click to expand...

There was observational research behind the development of Special Relatively, the most notable being the Michelson–Morley experiment.
 
It's OK, I think no matter how whacky this shit sounds that they should proceed. It's much better then just accepting that the world is flat if you know what I mean. How many times are things discovered and beliefs disproved almost by accident. How many times do people set out to do one thing and seemingly by accident step on something else that shakes the world up?

They are doing what they are supposed to be doing, challenging what we believe to test it's truth.
 
lcpiper said:
It's OK, I think no matter how whacky this shit sounds that they should proceed. It's much better then just accepting that the world is flat if you know what I mean. How many times are things discovered and beliefs disproved almost by accident. How many times do people set out to do one thing and seemingly by accident step on something else that shakes the world up?

They are doing what they are supposed to be doing, challenging what we believe to test it's truth.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
JiveMofo said:
to his credit, he does say he doesn't know what he'll find. it's just a guess that he'd love to test to see if anything holds.
Click to expand...

His experiment won't provide him with any data whatsoever that we're in a simulated universe or not.

A big part of his guess about the nature of our universe and the evidence for whether it is real or simulated comes from an assumption that simulations in the outside universe work the same way as simulations in our simulated universe. But the rules of the outside universe may not be anything like the rules in our simulated universe. A simulated universe in the outside universe might look like a real universe from inside our simulated universe or vice versa. Or it could be that his evidence is just the way things are in our universe or it could even just be coincidentally the same in both 'verses.
 
The title of this thread should be "Why citizens think the government spends more than a trophy wife with 5 kids and is in desperate need of a budget."
 
Youn said:
(ie, maybe they just like watching us eat and poop)
Click to expand...

Could be!

Being 1 *returns with the popcorn* "Did I miss anything?"
Being 2 "Yeah, you missed some good shit! 178k people just took a shit, and 2941 people twitted about it!"
Being 1 "Woah, awesome!"
 
Aireoth said:
Yet it is still a theory, that is how science works.

This is a theory, if you read the actual fermi lab documentation, it does little to mention holograms. They are talking about the expression of space and time on a quantum level, it has tested out on paper (mathmatically, hence now a theory rather than hypothysis). This experiment is to test the theory. Much like the theory of supersymmetry and multiverse where tested by the LHC.
Click to expand...

DigitalGriffin said:
All science is observational in nature including Einsteins relativity and string theory. They are the results of observations of nature, and a model created around that. But the model is just a simulation of the real thing.

It doesn't explain why things are or if the model will remain steady stable and correct.

As to the experiment I would have to read it more in detail. At NASA we built high altitude atmosphere probes with interferometers in them to look for waves. We also had one on ground level. The sensitivity of the instrument required us to it on a building with a granite pillar base and to set the interferometer up on a massive granite table with damping feet on the ground level. If they are planning on scaling that up (and I would have to look at the experiment more closely) I would hate to see the actions they have to take to measure their subatomic waves.
Click to expand...

The difference is the ease and repeatability and relatively low effort for the experiments tha make the foundations for Newton's laws make them empirical facts within a trivial error in certain circumtances. That's not a theory is an observation that has a mathematically predictable result. They may have been theory when they were first postuated.

Subatomic particles and black holes don't lend themselves to controlled experiments easily so there's only tiny shreds of data of some aspect which often don't enjoy the luxury of being repeated to often if at all. There's little reason to cling any single of those theories.
 
Sounds like the holographic principle should be ruled out soon. Can we pick up the pace on testing and rejecting string theory too? ;)
 
RealityCrunch said:
Could be!

Being 1 *returns with the popcorn* "Did I miss anything?"
Being 2 "Yeah, you missed some good shit! 178k people just took a shit, and 2941 people twitted about it!"
Being 1 "Woah, awesome!"
Click to expand...
Your numbers appear to be too realistic for you to have just pulled that out of your ass :eek:.
 
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top