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.
Related Stories
According to new research published by the American Physical Society in the Journal Physical Review letters, in the coming years it may be possible to test whether the universe is in fact a hologram.
The debate over The Holographic Principle — whether the universe is a flat (two dimensional) projection — is mind bending and still largely theoretical in nature. The holographic principle solves various problems, it can be used to explain quantum gravity and also
has been used to explain cosmic inflation, a pivotal period of time in the early universe where our cosmos expanded at quizzically breakneck speeds.
But an untestable theory, no matter how appealing the math, is ever an itch that needs scratching in science. So how do we do that?
During cosmic inflation, the universe became populated with quantum fluctuations, particles that temporarily appear out of empty space. “The inflationary universe had the right characteristics to make these fluctuations the seed of everything we observe today from the Cosmic Microwave Background, galaxies, stars, planets to cosmologists.”, said the researchers. These quantum fluctuations are what causes the irregular distribution of galaxies in the universe.
Through interactions with scalar fields, these fluctuations create distinct signals that can oscillate. To tell whether the universe is holographic, researchers took a look at the different intricate ways these signals could oscillate. If the signals are underdamped, meaning they move back and forth before reaching a point of equilibrium, then we can’t be living in a hologram. This is because if we’re living in a holographic universe, every signal we see must have a counterpart in a lower dimensional world. An underdamped signal can’t have such a counterpart.
In short, if we detect underdamped signals, we are not living in a holographic universe. And we can look for them:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:56AM
The most convincing part of this, for me, was the discovery in the 70s that the entropy of a black hole was proportional to the surface area of the event horizon, *not the hole's volume.* That is completely counter-intuitive in a three-dimensional universe.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:37AM
Has anyone actually measured this though? I don't think so. These purely deductive exercises are interesting, for sure. However, especially if we know GR is incompatible with QM, these long chains of deductions and assumptions that lead to counterintuitive results should be taken with a grain of salt.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FunkyLich on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:40AM
If entropy is something we can measure, and if we accept that anything which goes past the event horizon can not escape out again, that means that we can not measure it, information will never return to us in order to understand how much entropy is in there. It could be zero or infinite entropy in there, but so what. All the entropy we can measure is at the event horizon and this 'surface' entropy is all the entropy that the entire black hole will show to us, and in effect also to the Universe. All universal phenomena - our measuring inclusive - will deal only with the surface entropy. The 'inside' entropy would always remain dormant, trapped, or self-cancelling, whether infinite or zero.
Does this fantasy of mine make any sense?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:55AM
If entropy is something we can measure, and if we accept that anything which goes past the event horizon can not escape out again, that means that we can not measure it, information will never return to us in order to understand how much entropy is in there.
Even so, black holes have various traits that can be measured, such as the mass, the surface area of the event horizon, or the angular momentum. The surface area of the event horizon happens to be proportional to the theorized entropy content of the black hole.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:21AM
Shut up, khallow! The obvious rebuttal is that you are out of your league!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:25AM
In khallow's defense, if it is all a holographic simulation, where does all our money go when the simulation ends? Where is Peter Thiel putting all his wealth? (And no, khallow, I am not talking about your anus. Get a grip, dude! There is a limit to how much you can either lick boots, or that other thing.)
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:06PM
if it is all a holographic simulation
No. Holographic here means that given a region of space with a boundary, then one merely needs to observe the boundary to observe anything about the interior of the space. In other words, the data of the boundary completely specified the data of the interior. There is no assumption of being a simulation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:54AM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:54PM
Does this fantasy of mine make any sense?
No, but the reality of the situation doesn't either so we're good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:40AM
Agreed, thought this was the idea all along and not necessarily the same as "the holographic universe". But I never know what people mean when they say that.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:02AM
Black holes are generally assumed to have singularities at their center, thus there is nothing to fill the volume. The two entities then become the non-dimensional singularity and the event horizon. Since surface area and volume are both functions of the radius you could equate the entropy to the volume of the black hole, but physicists tend to use the simplest relations when possible so surface area wins.
As for entropy and black holes, well that is Nobel Prize stuff right there so good luck!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:58AM
Substantial evidence of a non-substantial universe!
(Score: 2, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:29AM
Dear physicists, some of us do get to encounter our sexual partners in actual real-life 3D.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:48AM
For most us Soylenters, that's merely hypothetical such that we remain skeptical ... and jealous.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM
I'll have you know that I've had 3D sex!! Thank god for VR ;)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SanityCheck on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:30AM
So this is the opposite of the other theory where our entire 3D universe is contained on the surface of a 4D blackhole?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:07AM
Yes! That other theory is called WD40!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:06PM
close its the opposite (ish) of the string theory stuff that requires 26, 10, or maybe 11 dimensions.
One way to deal with different forces being much weaker or much stronger than others is to hack in some extra very large or very small dimensions for the obscure forces to travel thru.
another hack that comes in is our shitty human math doesn't "do" string theory in arbitrary dimensions, so as our math improves we get more options. You can't run the equations that work in 11 dimensional theory in 9 for the hell of it.
The way these kind of puzzles traditionally get resolved in physics is arguing is brought to a head and then someone proposes something seemingly ridiculous and simple that subverts all the argument positions. So the "truth" is likely to be there's only 1 dimension or some huge ass prime number or maybe 42 has been the answer all along, or more likely the number of dimensions varies thru space or dimensions have mass or some ridiculous thing that none the less works. I like the idea of there being more than 4 fundamental forces which has certain implications on dimensionality.
The world is weird. There's no obvious reason there couldn't have been 1234567890 subatomic particles instead of the small number we have seen so far. There's no obvious reason why there can't be a fifth sixth or thousandth fundamental force other than we've not seen them so far. All these peculiar small integer numbers, why? Why not an Ackerman function number of distinct particles or similar? Usually physicists won't stand for "just because".
Another personality quirk of physicists is much like Generals and Admirals always fight the last war, just because quantum theory and relativity are beautiful and small (ish) and work so well, is no obligation on the universe for the future not to be much worse. See my traditional bias above. If you want to seriously troll physicists ask them if maybe the universe is just a sucky PITA and there is no unified theory and the topic is just done other than adding decimal places. Famously someone claimed that like a century ago and was wrong, but sooner or later he will be right...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:34AM
Why assume it's a projection from a 2D surface, why not 1D (a line)?
1D can project out to any number of dimensions, if resolution loss is acceptable.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:55AM
The resolution is pretty good, or it used to be. Seems to be getting a bit fuzzier as I age.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:40AM
...nothing but a porn tattoo on some ogre's ass.
Maybe it's recursive such that the ogre lives on Earth. (Not the orange guy with jutting hair and casinos.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:05AM
It's never ogre! [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fubari on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:00PM
Would that be like a Trump Stamp [browardpalmbeach.com] ?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:56AM
Or maybe it's all just a bad dream, caused by that fish I ate last night.
I mean it could be, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:42AM
I'm pretty sure the universe is a 4d autistic child's snowglobe.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:19AM
You may have indirectly hit upon the answer by talking about fish.
Have you every wondered why they call it a "food pyramid", and yet we only ever see one side of it?
Either it's a holographic pyramid, or they don't want us to know the other 2 sides show that beer, pizza, chips and poptarts are good for us.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:54AM
Stick to "social science" and such stuff. You just aren't cut out for physics/math.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:30AM
Spoken like a holographic anon in denial.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:51PM
Soylentils complain there are too many political, non-technical, non-science centered stories. Science stories are then submitted, and Soylentils complain the submitters should stick to non-technical, non-science subjects.
Sigh, OK. More Trump articles, then?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 01 2017, @04:06PM
You're to damned nice, Phoenix. Just tell them to bite your ass. Keep the stories coming. If you need something better to bitch about, how about "You go, girl!" *snicker*
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:59AM
Economists made ass of themselves pretending economics is like physics. Physicists hit a wall and got stuck for 30 years with this string "theories", and are now making ass of themselves with nonsense like multiverse, anthropogenic principles, and this holographic nonsense.
And they wonder why there are so many grad students/phds with no employment prospect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:24AM
Surely, people should stop doing science so some anonymous shape on teh internetz won't call 'em ass. What made it possible again?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:37AM
Economists made ass of themselves pretending economics is like physics.
That's quite the non-problem you have there! I think you should also tell off all those donkeys and marmots who think they are physicists too! We can't have that. And you are well-situated think-wise to address these related, important issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:39PM
And they wonder why there are so many grad students/phds with no employment prospect.
And I wonder what possible connection you see between theory and employment? Are you a Curmudgeon?
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:02AM
The fact that there can be more than one model that describes observable reality is not surprising. What would be interesting is if the holographic model makes testable predictions that are different to the standard model, and which can be show to coincide more with observable reality than the standard model.
Is that the case?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50PM
Yeah the journalist coverage is wild (as usual) but I read the actual abstract and they ran a bunch of sims using both a holographic model and the current champion standard model, and sometimes in some situations the holographic models produce a cosmic background radiation pattern that looks more like the real one we've measured, than like the patterns standard model simulations produce. With great steaming piles of handwaving of course.
Although there's a hell of a lot of overlap and the X matches reality a lot more often than Y does, doesn't matter for individual cases like our actual universe. It doesn't matter at all that 99% of the time when you hear hooves its a horse and not a zebra if you're standing in front of the zebra cage at the zoo, or maybe rephrased that 1% of the time it really is an actual zebra it simply doesn't matter that 99% of the time its not. So this paper is dealing with odds and likelihoods not proves and therefores. So nothing has been proven in this specific paper other than you can't rule out the holographic model and if you had to throw money on a roulette table and spin it a zillion times (although we only live in one universe so you get exactly one spin), you'd come out at least slightly ahead if you always bet on holographic rather than standard model.
Or rephrased in a pessimistic sense, say you want to disprove the holographic model, well, try to disprove it by doing something other than simulating the universe and comparing the simulated cosmic background radiation to the standard model simulations, because that sure didn't work. However you disprove it, you're gonna have to disprove it some other way. Its hard to sell negative result scientific papers "Yuppers my alchemy is still not turning lead into gold" isn't going to work in academia. So in that way the paper probably looks weird to people not used to how academic papers deal with negative results. You get used to it after awhile, but it always looks weird. As usual the journalists are dropping acid and coming up with a ridiculous alternative interpretation where the universe is a trippy my little pony hologram on your trapper keeper or holographic universe has been proven or whatever ridiculous crap you'd expect a liberal arts "fake news" grad to shovel out.
I was working on a great SN automobile analogy where you build models of the drivers license manual and DOT policy and economic systems based on looking at a great huge pile of google streetview pictures and then you compare your theoretical model pictures to the actual streetview pics to rule out models until you end up with something vaguely similar to a state drivers license manual and DOT regulations and stuff. And in this specific example some rather peculiar ideas about skyscraper economics seem to fit pictures of streetview skyscrapers we've seen better than the older consensus model. But its getting to be an old story and the car analogy is getting pretty stretched....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:43PM
was working on a great SN automobile analogy . . . But its getting to be an old story and the car analogy is getting pretty stretched....
So then, limo?
(Score: 2) by NickFortune on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:22PM
Yes, fair enough.
But suppose we're just living in a computer simulation of a 3D universe holographically encoded on the boundaries of a 2D surface? What then, hmmm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:01PM
Well, then i imagine it means that the Demiurge, Pleroma, Ashur, whatever.. is... more real then we are, and there are not going to be any privilege escalation or jailbreak type of exploits... Because it/they would be capable of inifinitely many FLOPS per unit of whatever passes for time wherever that thing is, compared to us caught in linear time?
There might be no way out without permission/cooperation/manipulation of whoever/whatever made the computing substrate generating us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:07PM
wow, the law machine is going to luv this ... not.
now they have to re-write all the laws; cue the modern "witch-hunting" in 3, 2, 1 ...
example: you didn't touch or interact physically in the classical sense but nevertheless, because of holografic physics, the person got sick because of you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:03PM
Is this what the flat earthers of the future will be trying to prove?