B Is 3D reality merely an illusion?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Simple man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Reality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the Holographic Universe, where quantum bits (qubits) on a cosmological horizon create a 3D reality through complex interactions. Participants express confusion about the nature of this reality, questioning how information can behave like matter and what underlies the initial encoding of these quantum bits. The conversation touches on the idea of an infinite, expanding universe and the challenges of conceptualizing its boundaries and dimensions. Concerns are raised about the speculative nature of these theories and the difficulty of discussing them without a strong background in advanced physics. Ultimately, the thread is closed due to the lack of valid references and the complexity of the topic.
Simple man
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
As in the Holographic Universe, how does apparent 3D reality emerge from a 2D surface?
Hi, everyone!
I read an online article, some time ago, on the Holographic Universe, and how it might operate. According to the author, quantum bits, or"qubits"of information exist on the surface of a cosmological horizon. Complex interactions between these qubits result in them becoming entangled, disentangled, having wave function and superposition of states, to collapse of wave function and only one state. All of this quantum activity gives rise to perpetual indeterminacy and uncertainty among those bits. This activity then represents itself as a holographic projection of 3 dimensional reality, extruded from the 2D cosmological horizon.
My question is, how can information interact with itself, and behave like particles of matter? And if 3D reality bleeds from pre-encoded quantum bits of information, what did the initial encoding? And why does this pseudo reality seem so real?
Any feedback?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I think you are probably referring to the ADs/CFT type theories. This is only an idea, and it is usually formulated in more dimensions than 2 or 3. One of the more popular ones is a 5D bulk projecting onto a 4D surface.

Cheers
 
I've had similar thoughts,

We're told that most physicists believe in an infinite universe, this infinite universe is expanding however, as well as accelerating in its expansion.

I just can't get that to make any sense in my mind. What kind of medium are our universe expanding in? its hard to make sense of these things but I cross my fingers that someone could elaborate on this thought-wave.

IF the boundary of a conformally-compactified anti-de sitter space is itself a conformally-compactified minkowski space with one fewer dimension. Could that be what separates our universe from what ever else there is. outside reality is space without time? or at least with one fewer dimension of some sort.

I know I'm probably lost in faulty-thoughts here but if you think of a simulated universe the same way. What separates that universe from outside its boundary? What it is projected on, and in a sense "expanding in" are itself a conformally-compactified minkowski space with one fewer dimension, right? And outside its boundary time is not applicable? at least not what translates into time for that universe.

trying to understand this makes my brain loop, what does this mean? how do we even know there is anything past the particle horizon? How do we know that time is moving faster than light?
 
Simple man said:
I read an online article

This is not a valid reference. PF discussions, particularly of a highly speculative model like this, should be based on actual published literature--peer-reviewed papers.

Also, for this topic, it will be basically impossible to discuss it meaningfully at the "B" level; you will be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed paper on the topic that can be understood without an "A" level (graduate level) background in relativity, quantum field theory, and cosmology.

Thread closed.
 
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