Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Holographic Universe

  1. Apr 24, 2006 #1
    I've been reading the book The Holographic Universe: By Michael Talbot and am attempting to find evidences for his writings in this book. He does, however, list many tests and experiments that help prove his basis, but I want to find the information of reproductive experiments that will prove or disprove beyond a doubt the things he says in this book.

    My first step is the Property of Nonlocality (the idea that "All points in space and time are equal and it is meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from everything else"-David Bohm). I'm not very in dept with a large vocabulary or am exactly great at mathematics beyond Euclidean Geometry (spl?). If you guys can help me find the information needed, it would be greatly appreciated.

    I did hear that this was in the Quantum Mechanics section, so if possible, i would love to find some information here.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 24, 2006 #2
    Have you read Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"? That's not a bad place to start if you are not very far advanced. He compares the concept with Zen ideas of connectedness and can help to get your mind around some unusual concepts.
     
  4. Apr 24, 2006 #3

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I should also write a book like the Dansing ..., and make a lot of money out of mystical gibberish with a sauce of physics !
    I'm just in quest of a title... any ideas ?
    I thought of "Prophecies of Duality: a Holistic View" or something... what do you think :surprised :biggrin:

    Seriously, you need to learn physics from the ground up. These musings are "fun" if you know from what known stuff it is extrapolated, but the other way around is totally confusing.
     
  5. Apr 24, 2006 #4
    Well, i can understand things that some people may find to be a bit wacked, and it's pretty simple for me to understand the ideas of the most complex things, it's just the math and stuff that gets me. I heard there was some evidence for nonlocality about a...positronium atom decay (spl?)...where a positron and an electron are fused together and then, when they decay, they both send out identicle photons that seem to still be connected, no matter how far away they are. i just can't find any info on it without haveing to buy another book, and i don't have alot money just to go out buying books.

    I'll check out that material you suggested though.
     
  6. Apr 24, 2006 #5

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are referring to entanglement, when separated particles are in a quantum state of superposition. Yes, some people consider this evidence of non-locality - although special relativity is not violated. But such interpretation is not universal. Those who follow Bohm see entanglement as evidence of non-locality, but they also deny certain fundamental elements of special relativity.
     
  7. Apr 24, 2006 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Oh no! No, no, no, no, no!

    We do not do metaphysics in this section of PF, nor should we do metaphysics in this section of PF. Bastardization of physics is not tolerated here.

    Zz.
     
  8. Apr 24, 2006 #7

    ttn

    User Avatar

    Sure, if one re-defines "special relativity" to be only about measurement outcomes (and *not* about the fundamental spacetime structure of the world).


    That has nothing to do with it. Or, if anything, it cuts the other way: people who are smart enough to understand what Bell really proved (namely, that non-locality is a fact of nature) then realize that the standard argument against Bohm (that his theory is nonlocal) is bogus. Although, to be fair, people who are smart enough to understand Bell are usually also smart enough to appreciate that Bohm's theory is virtuous for other reasons too (like that it solves the measurement problem).


    Yes... because they recognize that those elements *have* to be denied (on pain of contradicting Aspect-type empirical data).
     
  9. Apr 24, 2006 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Taking the classical aspect of special relativity seriously in quantum mechanics amounts to asserting Einstein's realism. I see no reason why any quantum physicist should be required to do this, just to justify the term relativistic.

    Relativistic Quantum Theory is quantum theory that behaves, according to its own definition of "behave", relativistically. By definition there isn't any "classical background" to appeal to, and those who assert that there is are denying quantum mechanics in the guise of arguing about details.
     
  10. Apr 24, 2006 #9

    ttn

    User Avatar


    So... you're saying quantum theory is consistent with relativity ("according to its own definition", whatever that means exactly)? What about the collapse postulate, which is *manifestly* in violation of Lorentz invariance? And if you think that the collapse isn't a necessary aspect of the dynamics, perhaps you could indicate the collapse-less theory you favor.
     
  11. Apr 24, 2006 #10

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Fair enough.

    To me, the collapse, and its "postulate" (do you mean the projection postulate?) are mistakes from the early era of QM. For me the state function has nothing per se to do with relativity, as it does not exist within spacetime.

    I see the space of states and the accompanying algebra of operators, as comprising a structured database containing all the responses to interaction that the given system could possibly have. The mechanism of a particular operation and its spectrum merely selects one of those possible behaviors, instantiated as a list of possible outcomes in spacetime. These outcomes are consistent with relativity in the sense that no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events, and in the limit where h -> 0 the Lorentz Transformations are valid.

    Beyond this, I am currently a fan of relational QM, expressed Merriam fashion as the interaction of dissering quantum viewpoints.
     
  12. Apr 25, 2006 #11
    Uh...guys..hello....big words, unable to comprehend...in other words....WTC are you talking about?!

    cd
     
  13. Apr 25, 2006 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I think that in itself should give you plenty of hints.

    You should not try to start at the "top", because to get there, one needs to go through all the steps in between. So when you ask about "nonlocality", there are already a series of understanding that is required to be able to comprehend accurate answers to that question. It is why there are so many prerequisites in higher level college classes.

    Read first about basic quantum mechanics, work yourself into quantum superposition and entanglement, then go into Bell theorem and experiments, and then maybe you'll discover the issue of "nonlocality".

    There are no shortcuts.

    Zz.
     
  14. Apr 25, 2006 #13

    ttn

    User Avatar

    OK, but if all you require by way of consistency with relativity is "no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events", why not favor the one version of QM which is completely ordinary and physical and common-sensical, and which has no special dynamical role being played by "observers", and which doesn't say that really there's no material world out there but just "information" in our minds, and doesn't postulate an infinity of unobservable parallel universes, etc., etc.??? I am of course thinking of Bohmian Mechanics (a theory whose dynamics, like orthodox QM, is non-local but which, also like orthodox QM, ensures that the nonlocal cannot be harnessed to send signals between spacelike separated events).


    Oh no! The most recent thing I read on "relational QM" was Rovelli's paper (on the arxiv a while back). I have never seen such blatant anti-scientific solipsism passed off as if it was serious physics.
     
  15. Apr 25, 2006 #14
    Yes, i understand where you're coming from, why don't you suggest to me some material that i don't have to buy or have mailed to me that i can actually understand the vocabulary and has no mathematics in it :D

    Do you see my point? i don't have time to wait for 10 years just so i know a little bit of vocabulary or am better at math. the theory in itself is all i need to know, i don't need to know how to do the math to understand the theory of it. what you guys have said isn't really that much, it's just that i don't know what alot of those words mean adn exactly what it is. could you please piece together the puzzle fo rme and we'll be okay from there.
     
  16. Apr 25, 2006 #15

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The book you mention in the original post is not really a good starting point to learn about quantum physics. Bohm's "holographic" ideas are definitely not mainstream, and you really need to learn mainstream concepts before you wander off into the wilderness. (Please keep in mind that I am a big fan of Bohm's writing. His "Quantum Theory" is a classic college text, but is not easy to acquire.)

    There are plenty of spots like Wikipedia and Plato that give overviews of key aspects of QM, but I have a feeling you will need more than that soon. Please keep in mind that QM has important mathematical components, and it is really hard to appreciate the nuances of many discussions without being familiar with these. So you must decide how far you want to go. But definitely, get familiar with the basics from these sites first and branch out from there.
     
  17. Apr 25, 2006 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Why would I be interested in that desperate paste-up effort to preserve the Lord Kelvin view of physics ("If you can frame a picture of it...") in the face of overwhelming evidence for quantumness? My other great interest in physics is anti-reification. Throughout the history of science physicsts have been prone to reify their mathematical structures into clunky machines: epicycles, vortices, ether, wave functions, you name it. I think all this is bunkum, and Bohm is its poster boy.


    < and here I expressed my interest in relational quantum theory >

    Do you even know what solecism means? Relationalism is as far from solecism as could be, because it says every observer must be taken absolutely seriously. We're all quantum cats and we're all observers too. Nobody is preferred, no point of view is sacred.
     
  18. Apr 25, 2006 #17

    ttn

    User Avatar

    I don't know what you mean. Since Bohmian Mechanics makes precisely the same empirical predictions as orthodox QM, it is in principle impossible that you could point to some empirical data and say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to Bohm's theory*." You could of course say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to classical physics*." But Bohmian Mechanics is not Newtonian Mechanics, so this is not at all the same thing.

    Look, there are several possible ways of *understanding* the (correct) empirical predictions of orthodox QM. And what I mean by "possible" in that last sentence is precisely that, despite telling very different stories about the way the world works, they all are (in one way or another) consistent with the experimental data we have.

    I'm currently exhausted from another long thread about this same topic, and so I really don't want to get into this here. But, for anyone who thinks the options facing us are simply "either Kelvin or quantumness, and the experiments clearly support quantumness" or whatever, please pick up a copy of (say) David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" so you can come to understand what the issues are.


    So then you advocate the "shut up and calculate" interpretation? Like Bell, I respect that to a certain degree -- namely, I respect that not everybody will be interested in finding out how the world actually works. (Some people will be content merely to be able to correctly predict how some experiment will come out.) But (also like Bell) I believe there is a real world out there, and that one of the jobs of physics is to figure out what it's like. And (again, like Bell) I think there are ways of doing that that don't involve the fallacy of "reification" (though it is admittedly very difficult and subtle).



    You mean (or rather, I said!) "solipsism", not "solecism." Or, if you meant "solecism", then no, I don't know what that means.

    The problem with "every observer must be taken absolutely seriously" is that only *one* observer can be taken "absolutely seriously* by each person -- namely, himself. This "relationalism" actually turns immediately into a rather silly version of MWI in which each conscious observer experiences just one branch of the true universal wave function... and hence (at least with very high probability) different observers don't actually observe the same reality. So this is about as far as one could possibly get from a straightforward/realist "quantum theory without observers."

    But let's not go down that road. The fundamental objection to the whole stupid (but trendy) attempt to interpret QM in terms of "information" is the following set of questions: *Whose* information? And information *about what*? At the end of the day, no "relational/information interpretation" can answer either of those questions (without simply rejecting that interpretation in favor of some other). And without answers to those questions, the very *term* "information" is rendered literally *meaningless* and the whole thing just falls apart as BS word salad.

    This point is made very nicely here

    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604173

    for anyone who's interested...
     
  19. Apr 26, 2006 #18

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You just don't get it. Bohmism posits classical (i.e. non-quantum) spacetime and then violates covariance to achive its predictions. Quantum mechanics asserts that no appeal to classical spacetime is really necessary beyond the results of the observations. So Bohm attempts to explain the quantum predictions by an appeal to old time (pre-Heisenberg) relativity physics and gets it wrong. QM does not make that appeal and is free of that error.

    Any explanation that is internally inconsistent is invalid, and I have argued above that the Bohmian explanation is inconsistent.

    I'm pretty full up myself, so I'll end this conversation after replying to the rest of this post. Best of luck.




    I used to, but the advent of rationally respectable relational QM gives me hope of more (Rovelli, Smolin, Merriam).

    Like Bell, I respect that to a certain degree -- namely, I respect that not everybody will be interested in finding out how the world actually works. (Some people will be content merely to be able to correctly predict how some experiment will come out.) But (also like Bell) I believe there is a real world out there, and that one of the jobs of physics is to figure out what it's like. And (again, like Bell) I think there are ways of doing that that don't involve the fallacy of "reification" (though it is admittedly very difficult and subtle).[/quote]

    I agree that understanding is the goal. I disagree that there is anything out there at the present moment that gets us further toward that understanding than we are with QM and its descendents RQFT and the Standard Model (whiich is more detailed understanding of how interactions relate to each other without additional understanding of what interactions are.





    Yes, solecism was a mistype (Freudian?).:surprised

    That's just the position of any account of our reality, unless you posit some supernatural eye in the sky that sees all knows all. Einsteinian relativity has the same problem, as many physicists asserted when it came out.

    What universal wave function. In the relational view there ain't no such thing. And to me "experiencing a wave function" is bad language for "projection on an observable".

    Since spacelike related observers can't communicate, whether they experience the "same" or a "different" reality is a meaningless question.

    Not "without observers" but without preferred observers.

    I find this whole argument to be just word salad. Whose information is all the bitstreams on the internet? Not mine unless I generate it or get it on my screen, i.e. "observe" it. And that is true for every user. Does that make it not information? I guess meaning is in the eye of the beholder, a good relational interpretation!:biggrin:

     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  20. Apr 26, 2006 #19

    ttn

    User Avatar

    I'd say you haven't fully understood Bell's proof of nonlocality (the original subject of this thread). Nonlocality (which roughly amounts to some kind of violation of relativity like that you describe in Bohm's theory) is a fact. You can only elude it by accepting something way, way harder to believe than what you are trying to elude -- e.g., that there isn't just one objective reality, but that we each have our own. That, I submit, isn't science; it's crap philosophy.



    Being inconsistent with relativity isn't the same as being internally contradictory. But even that isn't the issue. What matters is being consistent with all the empirical data -- including the violations of Bell's Inequaliites which prove that relativity is broken.




    Spoke like a true idealist (more crap philosophy!). How about the alternative that there's a real world out there, independent of *anybody's* consciousness (human's or god's or whatever). It's called "realism." It's the fundamental metaphysical foundation of science. You should try it!


    There's only one reality. We all experience some aspects of it. If we don't agree about that, there's (truly, deeply) no point talking.



    Actually, yes. What's "out there" in those wires is electrons, not information. Humans use the electrons to acquire information about... well, all sorts of things.


    Sure, but that's just being goofy with language. When you say, though, that "reality is in the eye of the beholder" -- i.e., there is no reality, just reality-as-experienced-by-me and then reality-as-experienced-by-you, you are off the crap philosophy deep end. This isn't the kind of stuff that scientifically minded people should (or even can) take seriously. It's not just a cute joke.
     
  21. Apr 27, 2006 #20

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They say that to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Every time someone wants to ask a question about non-locality in physics, we have ttn saying something like the above.

    To everyone except ttn: Bell never gave a proof that nature is non-local. Bell's Theorem states essentially as follows:

    No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

    This is the standard and accepted interpretation, and you will find this given in Wikipedia under Bell's Theorem.

    ttn has deposited a paper pushing his perspective (nature is non-local realistic) in the preprint archives. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal as of this time. There are other authors who have deposited in the preprint archives papers with diametrically opposite perspective: that Bell's Theorem is a proof that nature is local non-realistic (see THIS for a typical example).

    I believe ttn improperly labels his personal opinion as fact. This gives casual readers the wrong idea. I like ttn's work; I agree with some and disagree with some. But it should not be labeled as fact.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Holographic Universe
Loading...