SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram.
Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe -- in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.
...
A holographic universe, an idea first suggested in the 1990s, is one where all the information, which makes up our 3D 'reality' (plus time) is contained in a 2D surface on its boundaries.Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded!"
So there is a reason you feel like you're living in the Matrix.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:16AM
And my bank account is theoretically connected to the size of the economy by 42.
Just because there's fancy math that suggests something is true, doesn't make it true. Math is perfectly fine with all sorts of undesirable outcomes. It's why we bother having scientists conduct experiments to confirm their results and gather data.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:22AM
Until we get FTL though we're gonna have to go with our best guesses. Quite often physicists have come up with mathematics that have proven true, so until we have better data we have no choice but to operate on our best assumptions.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:40AM
Not really. How much of what physicists are doing isn't experimentally determinable and of actual consequence to our lives? The things that can't be tested are mostly things that aren't of any particular value right now. Paying people to come up with ideas that we can't hope to test for decades is bad. Using those ideas that haven't been experimentally verified as a basis for other hypotheses that can't be tested is just asking for trouble.
People respect what scientists do in large part because there was a ton of discipline involved with sticking as closely to what could be experimentally verified as possible. There's no way that I'd get on an airplane if I didn't have confidence that there had been research verifying the theory somewhere by somebody. Doing otherwise would be insane.
Bottom line here is that just because scientists are really, really sure about their math, doesn't make it real. I'm sure that phrenologists, graphologists and homeopaths felt and/or feel the same way even though there's no scientific basis for any of that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:00AM
How much of what physicists are doing isn't experimentally determinable and of actual consequence to our lives?
You should be thinking about what has already been experimentally determinable here. We have already determined that there are a large number of mass concentrations consistent with being black holes. We are not just speaking of purely theoretical objects.
Bottom line here is that just because scientists are really, really sure about their math, doesn't make it real.
My view is that when the patterns of math manifest in reality (and there wouldn't be reality without some sort of pattern of consistency in the first place), then it doesn't matter how sure we are about our math, or even if we are at all aware of the pattern. The consequences follow as surely as 2+2=4.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:44AM
And thus you have admitted (well done BTW) they are guesses and thus proved his point entirely.
You are right though. In the absence of being able to do good science, we do what we can. There is nothing wrong with that.
The problem is the mouth breathing idiots who take it anything approaching literally like some backwards god-fearing zealot.
In other words: A problem that matters not one bit and wont effect anything.
Which is why I usually let the idiots discuss this and move on...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:41AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:51AM
and..this is why I don't usually bother.
Not all evidence is equal.
Not all evidence can be used to prove something.
The above is the beginnings of a hint of evidence and is only noteworthy because the field is bereft of almost ANY evidence - and in the cast of holo-theory (or is that hollow?) it is the first of its kind.
Doesn't mean its not right, just means anyone saying it is anything more than vague (albeit interesting) speculation is a bloody moron.
That is why. It was implied. I am going back to being a hermit now.
Thanks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02PM
and..this is why I don't usually bother.
Pretty obnoxious for someone who isn't even wrong.
Not all evidence is equal.
Irrelevant. Evidence doesn't have to be equal to anything in order to be evidence or to confirm a theory.
Not all evidence can be used to prove something.
By definition, evidence proves something relevant. If data couldn't be used to support or falsify a theory, then it's not evidence.
Doesn't mean its not right, just means anyone saying it is anything more than vague (albeit interesting) speculation is a bloody moron.
Nonsense. We aren't discussing this in the near complete vacuum of "vague speculation". We have, for example, centers of galaxies where we observe stars hurtling towards us at a significant fraction of the speed of light while nearby stars are hurtling the opposite at a similar fraction of the speed of light. That's evidence of the necessary mass concentration that a black hole would have. Similarly, we have a variety of pretty solid confirmations of general relativity away from the quantum scale. So that's a combination of evidence that general relative works well enough and black holes exist. Sure, there's plenty wrong with science in general and cosmology in particular, but scientific nihilism doesn't contribute.
We have enough evidence that we can do more than "vague speculation" and the current theory of black holes is a good theory with good evidence supporting it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:40AM
Pretty obnoxious for someone who isn't even wrong.
Not Even Wrong. As IN: so far off that there is no evidence at all to support a claim? Oooh, Pot, khallow, kettle, black, wrong, not even. As Carl Sagan said, borrowing from the Ancients, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sure, there's plenty wrong with science in general and cosmology in particular, but scientific nihilism doesn't contribute.
If khallow actually knew anything about science, he would be ashamed and embarrassed to say this. Since he did say this, we can infer that he knows nothing. Scientific Nihilism is what science is. It also goes by the name of "falsificationism", coined by Sir Karl Popper. Just because you haven't proven something yet, that does not mean it is so.
We have enough evidence that we can do more than "vague speculation"
NO, we do not, and khallow is not helping by being such an ass. In the meanwhile, I have Russell's teapot. Do you know that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter? Do you doubt it? Well, then, prove that there isn't one, you poufter!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:49AM
Not Even Wrong. As IN: so far off that there is no evidence at all to support a claim? Oooh, Pot, khallow, kettle, black, wrong, not even. As Carl Sagan said, borrowing from the Ancients, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fortunately, I provided such evidence. We have, for example, observations of galaxy centers, that's pretty extraordinary right there. We also have numerous tests of General Relativity - more extraordinary evidence. Funny how all I had to do was repeat what I said earlier in order to refute your argument. That's an obvious rebuttal.
Sure, there's plenty wrong with science in general and cosmology in particular, but scientific nihilism doesn't contribute.
If khallow actually knew anything about science, he would be ashamed and embarrassed to say this. Since he did say this, we can infer that he knows nothing. Scientific Nihilism is what science is. It also goes by the name of "falsificationism", coined by Sir Karl Popper. Just because you haven't proven something yet, that does not mean it is so.
Ignoring evidence is not falsification. And words mean things.
We have enough evidence that we can do more than "vague speculation"
NO, we do not, and khallow is not helping by being such an ass. In the meanwhile, I have Russell's teapot. Do you know that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter? Do you doubt it? Well, then, prove that there isn't one, you poufter!
I can do even better. I don't care.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:49AM
Just because there's fancy math that suggests something is true, doesn't make it true.
Let us keep in mind that the math in question already comes with a fair number of confirming experiments and known unknowns (like how general relativity plays with quantum mechanics). There are other things indicating the "holographic" nature of a bit of space, such as heat dissipation for a bit of space being through the boundary of the space. At constant temperature, that becomes a change in entropy of the space which is dependent on what happens at the boundary. Theoretically (again, though with considerable physical backing), any changes in the state or structure of the internal space generates heat, which then needs to be dissipated through the boundary in order to maintain the space's internal temperature. Thus, we have a relation between the information of the interior of a space and the heat and entropy passing through the boundary of the space.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday February 01 2017, @01:39PM
Just because there's fancy math that suggests something is true, doesn't make it true.
Well, it generally does, [wikipedia.org] because mathematics isn't just people sitting around making guesses, as you seem to be implying.