The universe is a hologram - world renowned scientist

[VALIS]

Watch this super long lecture by Stanford professor Leonard Susskind about the nature of black holes and the possibility and crazy sounding idea that the world is a hologram.

Susskind and Stephen Hawking engaged in a decades long debate about Hawking's black hole theory regarding the idea of information being destroyed by black holes - which ended with Hawking recanting his idea and Susskind being proven right.

[Niles Crane]

I'm sold.

[Gpower]

ok, so what he is basically saying is that 3D information can be expressed in a 2D form. And that perhaps we can gain information of the universe outside of the horizon of our observable universe, by looking at the 2D information on the edges of said observable universe.

Arg. My head hurts, and the title of this thread/video is kinda misleading.

[Sphere]

Way over my head, but the criticism in a nutshell.

It is worth pointing out that there is no physical evidence to suggest this is correct -- and it's a view that has proven to be rather controversial -- it is purely a hypothesis that has bubbled up from complex mathematics handed down from black hole theory.

And recent experiments looking in to the "grainy-ness" of space-time are pointing in the exact opposite direction; a holographic universe would be very "grainy", yet it seems our space-time is much smoother than expected even by standard quantum mechanics.

And like all things nestled in string theory, it requires extra-dimensionality which is as of yet, completely unobserved. It is possible our 3+1 dimensions are just the "shadow" of a higher dimensional universe, but there is no evidence suggesting it.

[VALIS]

Way over my head, but the criticism in a nutshell.



And recent experiments looking in to the "grainy-ness" of space-time are pointing in the exact opposite direction; a holographic universe would be very "grainy", yet it seems our space-time is much smoother than expected even by standard quantum mechanics.

And like all things nestled in string theory, it requires extra-dimensionality which is as of yet, completely unobserved. It is possible our 3+1 dimensions are just the "shadow" of a higher dimensional universe, but there is no evidence suggesting it.

I saw that criticism, I hope it's true, the idea that the unobservable universe is a giant 2D mat wrapped around into a triangular-cylinder projecting our 3D universe into the middle is just far too much for my little head to handle.

Although I think this holographic theory is not entirely dependent on string theory, quantum field theory uses it as well, but it seems to match up to the mathematical models used in string theory better.

[Sphere]

Although I think this holographic theory is not entirely dependent on string theory, quantum field theory uses it as well, but it seems to match up to the mathematical models used in string theory better.

The holographic principle in the abstract is undisputed as far as I know, and can be be applied to a wide range of things involving the storage of information.

Holographic cosmology (actually describing the whole universe as a hologram) only fits in certain string theories, if I am understanding things correctly. But there exists the distinct possibility that I am not.

[VALIS]

It seems like such a leap. That because measuring information in three dimensional space comes out in area instead of volume then the universe must be an image from holographic code wrapping around us.

It's fascinating though, I love wacky stuff like this. Especially hearing it from respectable no nonsense scientists. This is the stuff I'd expect from Deepak Chopra or David Icke.

[Sphere]

It seems like such a leap. That because measuring information in three dimensional space comes out in area instead of volume then the universe must be an image from holographic code wrapping around us.

It's fascinating though, I love wacky stuff like this. Especially hearing it from respectable no nonsense scientists. This is the stuff I'd expect from Deepak Chopra or David Icke.

From my point of view, it seems to be an interesting set of mathematical tools that arose in the Sussek v. Hawkins debate on information storage in black holes, which now having been developed Sussek and others are trying to make fit onto the universe as a whole without any experimental demand for it.

In short, it's a reverse of Newtons Calculus, or Feynman's Renormalization, both of which were mathematical tools invented after looking around for a way to remove roadblocks staling the progress of specific physical theories. Here its the other-way around, the the mathematical tool is looking around the universe for a physics problem to solve.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'd recommend his book "The Black Hole War". It kinda goes through many theories and explains a lot of physics behind the universe.

[General_Thral]

if a black hole doesn't destroy information , is it safe to assume its being stored? and that black holes could be viewed as storage devices ?

and if so , how would you get the information back out of the black hole?

[DisgruntledGoat]

if a black hole doesn't destroy information , is it safe to assume its being stored? and that black holes could be viewed as storage devices ?

and if so , how would you get the information back out of the black hole?

White Holes

[Elfdude]

if a black hole doesn't destroy information , is it safe to assume its being stored? and that black holes could be viewed as storage devices ?

and if so , how would you get the information back out of the black hole?

This is known as hawking radiation. It's not clear if the blackhole stores some/all/any of the information or if it's released as hawking radiation but hawking radiation means that at least one copy of the information information should be preserved... although it'll be diffused to space around the blackhole.

[MathiasOfAthens]

What about Wormholes? Are they really intergalactic transport hubs? Go in one hole and out another somewhere in Gamma Quadrant?

[PointOfViewGun]

There is also the idea that black holes gives birth to new universes where the transported information is virtually lost to the former.

[MathiasOfAthens]

There is also the idea that black holes gives birth to new universes where the transported information is virtually lost to the former.

Yeah good luck proving that.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah good luck proving that.

You can read his book to see the reasoning.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah but how do you prove such a thing? If you send a probe in the information cant come out and tell you what is there? You could send yourself?

[DisgruntledGoat]

Yeah but how do you prove such a thing? If you send a probe in the information cant come out and tell you what is there? You could send yourself?

You look for evidence in YOUR universe from the black hole that created you. That's what they are doing anyways, apparently looking at the cosmic background radiation or something. Way over my head anyways so its hard to explain. You can find articles online.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah but how do you prove such a thing? If you send a probe in the information cant come out and tell you what is there? You could send yourself?

Pretty much none of the theories of the Black Hole War are proven by empirical evidence. They're simply backed by thought experiments. Nothing more.

[Diamat]

Pretty much none of the theories of the Black Hole War are proven by empirical evidence. They're simply backed by thought experiments. Nothing more.

Exactly. These so-called theories tend to be non-falsifiable and therefore are not scientific.