Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hologram This...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hologram This...

    Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched

    Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram.

    The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle.

    The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.

    It might sound absurd. But if when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863...ciple-universe
    I wonder what a two dimension universe would do to our understanding of time, if anything...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    That'd explain why reality very rarely feels all that real to me.
    "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

    — Alfred North Whitehead

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched



      I wonder what a two dimension universe would do to our understanding of time, if anything...
      The arrow of time is not affected by the Holographic Principle if that's you're asking. It was formulated to solve the black-hole information paradox that has us scratching our heads. That requires a lot of in depth technical understanding of general relativity and quantum field theory to truly appreciate and do the theory justice though. I've got a debate later this week or else I would try to do illustrations of that and that Ads/CFT duality.

      Comment


      • #4
        If this is true, then one dimension is fundamentally different to the other two (in a hologram, the depth is very different in nature to the width and height). Is there any evidence that this is the case?
        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
          The arrow of time is not affected by the Holographic Principle if that's you're asking. It was formulated to solve the black-hole information paradox that has us scratching our heads. That requires a lot of in depth technical understanding of general relativity and quantum field theory to truly appreciate and do the theory justice though. I've got a debate later this week or else I would try to do illustrations of that and that Ads/CFT duality.
          Well I'm not sure how this may or may not fit in with the hologram theory, but I suspect they would be connected - aren't physicists actually questioning the "arrow of time?"
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
            That'd explain why reality very rarely feels all that real to me.
            Yeah, that happen to me back in the Sixties when I dropped orange sunshine...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Or... we could be living in the matrix...

              http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

              scientists and philosophers are always coming up with these odd ideas to try to explain the universe. Even back when they thought the Sun and Planets revolved around the earth and came up with epicycles to explain it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well I'm not sure how this may or may not fit in with the hologram theory, but I suspect they would be connected - aren't physicists actually questioning the "arrow of time?"
                Not really no, its a problem they haven't explained.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Well I'm not sure how this may or may not fit in with the hologram theory, but I suspect they would be connected - aren't physicists actually questioning the "arrow of time?"
                  The 'hologram theory' would a computer modeling exercise, and not a theory that considers that our universe as actually a hologram as we use the term to artificially create a three dimensional image that is not real. It may be possible to model possible universes that, of course. would not exist beyond the time/space framework of the that particular universe in a two dimensional framework.

                  Theories that question the arrow of time are not related. Almost all contemporary theories link time to space and only exists within all possible universes.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-05-2015, 09:45 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    The 'hologram theory' would a computer modeling exercise,
                    Actually its not. Its a particular theorem regarding physics that says that all the physics going on inside a volume can be turned into physics about things going on at the boundary of that volume. It has nothing to do with computer modeling per say.

                    Theories that question the arrow of time are not related. Almost all contemporary theories link time to space and only exists within all possible universes.
                    The arrow of time has nothing to with spacetime as such, it has something to do with entropy.

                    I haven't seen someone so consistently mouth off about things he hasn't the faintest clue about. You're a walking textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and you're showing no sign of improving. I've put you on ignore, but your posts are so short, that it barely makes them disappear, and you post so many times its like a never ending torrent of spam.

                    Seriously Shunya, you need to stop reading junk internet articles, and start to read actual books for a while.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Actually its not. Its a particular theorem regarding physics that says that all the physics going on inside a volume can be turned into physics about things going on at the boundary of that volume. It has nothing to do with computer modeling per say.
                      Disagree.

                      The arrow of time has nothing to with spacetime as such, it has something to do with entropy.
                      The arrow of time does not exist without space. Entropy problems are another subject all together, and poorly understood and represented. Entropy only applies in defined closed systems which in terms of universes is at present unknown.

                      <snip> trolling
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Disagree.
                        Yes, because you're a crank.

                        The arrow of time does not exist without space.
                        Actually you can talk quite sensible about the arrow of time in systems without space coordinates as such, if you want to get really abstract for a while. The arrow of time of the universe of course does not exist without space, because the universe contains space, you moron.

                        Entropy problems are another subject all together, and poorly understood and represented.
                        I have no idea what you mean, the arrow of time is precisely a subject of entropy. That's the whole point of it. Why do we live in a universe where we get to see entropy increasing over time? Why isn't it already at maximum from all eternity? That's something that physicists don't have a physical model that can account for.

                        The notion of entropy is also precisely defined, so I don't know what you mean by it being poorly understood and represented. Though I guess your own understanding and representation of these topics are very poor, in that case I agree. You don't know jack about this stuff. Do you even know what the words you're flapping out mean?

                        Entropy only applies in defined closed systems which in terms of universes is at present unknown.
                        I know what closed systems are, but what are 'defined closed systems'? And the later half is just broken english, I really can't make heads or tails of it. Its kinda apparent here that english a second language to you. I guess you meant to say:

                        "Entropy only applies in [well-]defined closed systems, which our universe may or may not be"

                        If I've correctly reconstructed the meaning you actually intended, here's my response. You can easily define entropy in open systems if you wish. You can even define it locally in points of space as a sort of statistical feature. You don't know that, because you get your education from skimming wikipedia and popsci articles, instead of actually reading a book on statistical mechanics. Second the arrow of time would be a problem even if the universe wasn't a closed system, which I'm afraid it is, like it or not. Globally, on a scale far vaster than what we can perceive? Sure it might not be closed, but locally out to the edge of the visible universe ninety billion lightyears away? Its closed as a seashell.

                        <snip> trolling
                        Okay Shunya, you tell me what this is supposed to mean. I guess you take my response to you as trolling? The <snip> is kinda interesting, in an internet post this means that the rest of what has been posted has been edited out and replaced with a single comment. Its what you do when you quote someone, but you quoted me in full and responded to everything I said.

                        So you're saying you snipped off the rest of what you said? Seriously, you're bad at this.
                        Last edited by Leonhard; 07-06-2015, 02:11 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          <snip>
                          Entropy problems are not related to time. The problems of Entropy are related to the 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics.

                          In cosmology:

                          Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Thermodynamic+entropy



                          3. (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Source: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm



                          The American Heritage Dictionary gives as the first definition of entropy, "For a closed system, the quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work." So it's a negative kind of quantity, the opposite of available energy.

                          Today, it is customary to use the term entropy to state the second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, this paraphrase of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease.

                          A familiar demonstration of the second law is the flow of heat from hot things to cold, and never vice-versa. When a hot stone is dropped into a bucket of cool water, the stone cools and the water warms until each is the same temperature as the other. During this process, the entropy of the system increases. If you know the heat capacities and initial temperatures of the stone and the water, and the final temperature of the water, you can quantify the entropy increase in calories or joules per degree.

                          You may have noticed the words "closed system" a couple of times above. Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, available energy has decreased and entropy has increased as required.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Our universe cannot be assumed as a 'closed system.' This is an unknown.

                          Source: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/entropy.html



                          In fact, order can only be produced by increasing entropy. This is because producing order out of chaos involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy. The expenditure of energy is never perfectly efficient and so it always increases the overall amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered, even as order is produced from the remaining energy. Since ordering requires an increase in entropy, it is a bit ironic to find creationists claiming entropy as an anti-ordering process (which it is not) in order to "prove" special creation, when it would make more sense to use it as an ordering process to "prove" divine arrangement of the laws of physics. However, I must head off such a switch-hitting strategy. There is no sign of intelligent design in the Second Law. It is actually the only logical way that any mindless, material universe would operate. Since it is the logically necessary result of any universe which contains bits of mass-energy that never change in quantity, all that is needed for this law to materialize is such a universe, leaving no room for any intelligent tinkering--except at the point of the creation of those bits of stuff or the space and time in which they move, but that is another story. When we examine the Second Law alone, we see that it would be the natural result of any undesigned but merely existing universe, which contained an unchanging quantity of bits. At the same time, we see that this law prevails over and defines every change in the universe we happen to be in, and yet in no way prevents natural order from arising--so long as energy becomes disordered in producing it.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          The only direct relationship between entropy and the arrow of time, is that entropy requires a time/space framework to exist, ie our universe. The reality is because of gravity or possibly quantum gravity true entropy is likely never possibly achieved.

                          The controversy of 'entropy,' arrow of time, time/space issues beyond our universe does have at present unknowns, ie lack of explanations for the low entropy state of the beginning of our universe.

                          If you are going get into these problems your going to have to present a more detailed sound background of the physics and cosmology involved. At present you have failed to do this
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Entropy problems are not related to time. The problems of Entropy are related to the 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics.
                            The concept of Entropy implies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There's a popular restating of that law in terms of entropy in Statistical Mechanics. The 3rd Law is about entropy, namely it states that the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature is zero. So yes, entropy relates to those two laws, thank you Captain Obvious.

                            Entropy is related to time. According to 2nd Law the entropy of any closed system, such as the visible universe, will always increase over time. This relates to the Arrow of Time problem: if the laws of mechanics are time-symmetric (and they are), why don't we ever see the pieces of a broken cup reassemble themselves and jump back up on the shelf as a whole piece? Because entropy has increased from one situation to the other.

                            Which brings us to the issue that physicists haven't gotten a good explanation for, why did the universe, that we can see, start out in a low entropy state? Like it or not, there isn't a good explanation of that.

                            Its almost as if someone 'wound up the clock' before setting the universe off.

                            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Thermodynamic
                            ...
                            http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

                            The American Heritage Dictionary gives as the first definition of entropy,...
                            I accused you of getting your education of online articles and you don't disappoint. However I didn't know you'd be so much of a crank to outright post this stuff. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with them. Is there anything in these articles that disagree with anything I've said, or have you resorted to argument by citation?

                            Our universe cannot be assumed as a 'closed system.' This is an unknown.
                            Are you referring to the panspermia article as being against the idea that the universe is closed. It gives an analogy to a bucket being heated by a lamp... Is that your argument?

                            And as I told you before, the visible universe is for all practical purposes closed as a sea shell, there is no external energy input of any kind whatsoever. Regarding the bits we can't see? Of course we don't know about them.

                            Again an article I don't see the relevancy of and that you don't explain. It has no connection to your wrong idea that entropy requires space, which isn't a big error all being said. It has nothing to do with you failing to argue that entropy is not what is at issue in the arrow of time, when the arrow of time precisely come about because the universe starts out in a low entropy state and evolves into a higher one. Physicists know why this happens, except that they don't know why it started out in a low state.

                            Richard Carrier was responding to a completely different issue raised (wrongly in my opinion) by Scientific Creationists who argued that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents 'order' from arising out of 'non-order'

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              The concept of Entropy implies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There's a popular restating of that law in terms of entropy in Statistical Mechanics. The 3rd Law is about entropy, namely it states that the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature is zero. So yes, entropy relates to those two laws, thank you Captain Obvious.

                              Entropy is related to time. According to 2nd Law the entropy of any closed system, such as the visible universe, will always increase over time. This relates to the Arrow of Time problem: if the laws of mechanics are time-symmetric (and they are), why don't we ever see the pieces of a broken cup reassemble themselves and jump back up on the shelf as a whole piece? Because entropy has increased from one situation to the other.

                              Which brings us to the issue that physicists haven't gotten a good explanation for, why did the universe, that we can see, start out in a low entropy state? Like it or not, there isn't a good explanation of that.

                              Its almost as if someone 'wound up the clock' before setting the universe off.



                              I accused you of getting your education of online articles and you don't disappoint. However I didn't know you'd be so much of a crank to outright post this stuff. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with them. Is there anything in these articles that disagree with anything I've said, or have you resorted to argument by citation?



                              Are you referring to the panspermia article as being against the idea that the universe is closed. It gives an analogy to a bucket being heated by a lamp... Is that your argument?

                              And as I told you before, the visible universe is for all practical purposes closed as a sea shell, there is no external energy input of any kind whatsoever. Regarding the bits we can't see? Of course we don't know about them.



                              Again an article I don't see the relevancy of and that you don't explain. It has no connection to your wrong idea that entropy requires space, which isn't a big error all being said. It has nothing to do with you failing to argue that entropy is not what is at issue in the arrow of time, when the arrow of time precisely come about because the universe starts out in a low entropy state and evolves into a higher one. Physicists know why this happens, except that they don't know why it started out in a low state.

                              Richard Carrier was responding to a completely different issue raised (wrongly in my opinion) by Scientific Creationists who argued that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents 'order' from arising out of 'non-order'
                              You have not demonstrated why entropy is an issue with the arrow of time.

                              No, the universe cannot be assumed to be closed system.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:59 AM
                              10 responses
                              44 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 12-02-2021, 09:14 AM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Roy, 12-02-2021, 06:58 AM
                              15 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Markus River  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-01-2021, 08:26 AM
                              25 responses
                              110 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-30-2021, 08:03 PM
                              28 responses
                              128 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Working...
                              X