Is Our Three-Dimensional Reality Just a Holographic Illusion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept that our three-dimensional reality may be a holographic projection based on theories from black hole physics, suggesting that the universe could be encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This idea posits that our perception of a limitless universe is an optical illusion, with reality potentially represented as discrete "pixels" on a spherical surface. The conversation also touches on the relationship between observation and theoretical constructs, emphasizing that while Lorentz invariance is a mathematical affirmation, observation remains a critical factor in understanding physics. Additionally, the constancy of the speed of light is highlighted as a fundamental observation supporting Einstein's theories. Ultimately, the dialogue underscores the interplay between imagination and empirical evidence in the realm of physics.
PFanalog57
Messages
384
Reaction score
0
Studies of black hole physics by people like Hawking and Bekenstein suggests that our perceptual universe, which is perceived to have three spatial dimensions, might instead be "written" on a two-dimensional surface, analogously to a computer generated holographic projection. The everyday perceptions of our world as three-dimensional could be a type of optical delusion of our consciousness, or merely one of two alternative ways of describing reality.

The universe could be a system of discrete interlocking "pixels" encoded on a 2-dimensional substrate.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur
Eddington:


QUOTE:

All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our
common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might
also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .



Holography uses light in a manner that produces three-dimensional images on a photographic plate or film. A holographically generated universe, would cause an observer to see the universe as being without limits, and at the same time the universe would be finite.

The holographic universe would be "painted" on a spherical surface of 2 dimensions and projected inward, retaining an appearance of being without limit.

Information exchange among physical processes would take precedence over fields or space-time.

Each event in space-time has its own intrinsic measure of time, its own "present moment", which is a point in the the separation plane of past and future, with the future as an uncertainty.

Why not represent the present moment of an arbitrary observer as the inward collapse of the "past" light-cone/circular cross section to the point of the "present moment" and the outward expanse of the future light-cone/circular cross section into the uncertain future.

A 2-dimensional planar "cross-section" of the present moment, which is the overlapping of past history, present moment, and future uncertainty.
p is the observational center of the overlapping cross sections. The "proper time".

[<-[->[<-[p]->]<-]->]

Now it appears that the "past" moments are cumulative and are increasing in information density = Shannon entropy as a cumulative overlapping of Lorentz invariant circular cross sections via holographically generated[discrete] pixels.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
That is more science fiction than fact. Observation outweighs theoretical speculations. Try to bear in mind that observation is the independent variable.
 
Chronos said:
That is more science fiction than fact. Observation outweighs theoretical speculations. Try to bear in mind that observation is the independent variable.

Lorentz invariance is an established scientific "observation". :eek:

Brainstorming is not forbidden in "physics".
 
Disagreed. Lorentz invariance is not an 'observation'. It is a mathematical construct affirmed by observation. Similarily, brainstorming is not forbidden by 'physics'. It is, however, frequently forbidden by observation.
 
Chronos said:
Disagreed. Lorentz invariance is not an 'observation'. It is a mathematical construct affirmed by observation. Similarily, brainstorming is not forbidden by 'physics'. It is, however, frequently forbidden by observation.

The constancy of the speed of light in vacuum is an "observation".

What is more important, imagination or ...observation?
 
The constancy of the speed of light in vacuum is an "observation".


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741682



By comparing gamma ray observations of two nearby galaxies, a NASA researcher found evidence that the speed of light is still traveling as fast as it ever has. The finding reinforces the relevance of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which depends on the constant speed of light in a vacuum as the maximum speed attainable by any object.

[...]

The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum depends on the uncertainty principle and what is known as the Lorentz invariance, a fundamental principle of Einstein's special theory of relativity that states the laws of physics — including the speed of light — are the same everywhere. The uncertainty principle, part of quantum physics, allows for virtual particles called quantum fluctuations to pop in and out of existence at the subatomic level, creating what some researcher believe is a "quantum foam" that makes up the fabric of spacetime.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top