How an argument with Hawking suggested the Universe is a hologram

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

by aditiyaa1 • 15 years ago

51 25 15 years ago

arstechnica.com

awaz• 15 years ago

I was surprised that the article did not mention entropy even once. It rather used the term 'information content'.

robryan• 15 years ago

I like to try and keep up with physics and am interested in astronomy but this stuff really goes straight over my head. If this is correct what are the implications?

stephth3• 15 years ago

What was missing from the discussion was an attempt to tackle one of the issues that plagues string theory: the math may all work out and it could provide a convenient way of looking at the world, but is it actually related to anything in the actual, physical Universe? Nobody even attempted to tackle that question.

I was surprised and happy to read this part. With my multiple attempts (and mostly failing) to understand quantum mechanics or string theory, I got the impression that this topic is never approached, and that omission never explained. If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has multiple parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to our lives.

I think that's what lead me to the impression - as an outsider - that fascinating sounding things like the many-worlds interpretation are beautiful ideas that do not exist outside of equations, they're a kind of science fiction, a kind that is backed by mathematics and published in journals.

burgerbrain• 15 years ago

String theory and QM are dissimilar in this aspect. Predictions made by QM have been experimentally verified to an absurd preciseness. In fact, some of the most precise verifications ever done in science have been in QM.

icegreentea• 15 years ago

Yes. In fact the whole 'many worlds' thing from QM is just an interpretation of what the equations appear to be stating. For example, in general the equations tell us with retardedly awesome precision the probability of events occurring. This is hard science. The many worlds interpretation (ie something along the lines that the universe branches at every possible 'coin toss') is one attempt at reconciling this 'non-intuitive' behavoir (that the universe is inherently probabilistic) with our intuition.

Much of the 'far off' musings in the many worlds interpretation is the result of physicists being bored and wanting to have some fun, or some popsci gone horribly wrong.

Edit: Also, if we did live in a holographic universe, there may be experimental proof of it (the ars article left it out). Ironically linking to a popsci article... (says that we probably aren't)

link: http://news.discovery.com/space/we-might-not-live-in-a-holog...

jpeterson• 15 years ago

If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has multiple parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to our lives.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to demand that any theoretical truth about the nature of the entire universe should be relatable to the life of a human?

stephth3• 15 years ago

I think you missed my point. Saying that it doesn't relate at all - as unlikely as that would be - would at least be a response to the question.

omarchowdhury2• 15 years ago

It is not presumptuous. The very human is the one pondering about this 'truth': it very well relates to him as the 'nature' of the Universe contains man within it, does it not? So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man.

If it were the case that there are multiple parallel futures, then we ask ourselves:

How do I navigate myself to the best-possible future for me and those who surround me?

It is your very actions day by day that determine where it is that you go.

goodside3• 15 years ago

MWI has a great deal to say about your life, as the rules that imply MWI are the exact same rules that imply chemistry. MWI is not QM with an added postulate of "Oh, by the way, everything happens." MWI is QM. Period. Decoherence unambiguously happens in the math, and nothing we have ever observed gives any reason to think the math doesn't apply to us.

thret• 15 years ago

Um, MWI is not QM. MWI is an elegant way of explaining the results of QM just as 6000 years ago God was an elegant way of explaining creation. It is interesting to think about but without proof of any kind it has little value.

Think about the implications of a real MWI. Real universes are not cheap, an apparently infinite supply is extremely ridiculous.

stephth3• 15 years ago

How does this relate with Talbot's perspective(s) on the universe as a hologram?

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

jerf• 15 years ago

Hawking et. al. are arguing about an idea that has equations and some sort of potential physical meaning, and in accordance with the Correspondence Principle [1] has only the most subtle of impact on the rest of physics as we know it, if true. It's an idea that can be disproved, and may have been disproved: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/hologram-universe/

The essay you linked to is Deepak Chopra-style quanto-babble with little content that can actually be translated into something meaningful in the real world. Indeed, one must ask the question, if "reductionist" scientists are so fundamentally wrong about everything, then how come they can so successfully predict so much? Is there some physical experiment that can be run that this will produce better predictions for?

So, I'd say the relationship is that Hawking et al are doing science, and Talbot is using their work as the seed for his internal random number generator.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

ImperatorLunae• 15 years ago

I love it when the "quirks" break the whole theory. This is what happened in the late 1800's; there were only minor flaws in Physics that needed to be ironed out.

Of course, when that started, the garment caught on fire.

ZoFreX• 15 years ago

> "When Hawking says 'rubbish,'" he said, "you've lost the argument."

I hope this is an exaggerated anecdote and not actually the case.

How an argument with Hawking suggested the Universe is a hologram

Related Stories