Our World may be a giant hologram - Page 2
Forum Index > General Forum |
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
| ||
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
| ||
![]()
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
![]() + Show Spoiler [longer explanation of the picture above] + Susskind takes it a step further. Since the holographic principle leaves no room for information loss, he argues, no observer should ever see information disappear. That leads to a remarkable thought experiment. Which brings us back to the elephant. Let's say Alice is watching a black hole from a safe distance, and she sees an elephant foolishly headed straight into gravity's grip. As she continues to watch, she will see it get closer and closer to the event horizon, slowing down because of the time-stretching effects of gravity in general relativity. However, she will never see it cross the horizon. Instead she sees it stop just short, where sadly Dumbo is thermalised by Hawking radiation and reduced to a pile of ashes streaming back out. From Alice's point of view, the elephant's information is contained in those ashes. Inside or out? There is a twist to the story. Little did Alice realise that her friend Bob was riding on the elephant's back as it plunged toward the black hole. When Bob crosses the event horizon, though, he doesn't even notice, thanks to relativity. The horizon is not a brick wall in space. It is simply the point beyond which an observer outside the black hole can't see light escaping. To Bob, who is in free fall, it looks like any other place in the universe; even the pull of gravity won't be noticeable for perhaps millions of years. Eventually as he nears the singularity, where the curvature of space-time runs amok, gravity will overpower Bob, and he and his elephant will be torn apart. Until then, he too sees information conserved. Neither story is pretty, but which one is right? According to Alice, the elephant never crossed the horizon; she watched it approach the black hole and merge with the Hawking radiation. According to Bob, the elephant went through and floated along happily for eons until it turned into spaghetti. The laws of physics demand that both stories be true, yet they contradict one another. So where is the elephant, inside or out? The answer Susskind has come up with is - you guessed it - both. The elephant is both inside and outside the black hole; the answer depends on who you ask. "What we've discovered is that you cannot speak of what is behind the horizon and what is in front of the horizon," Susskind says. "Quantum mechanics always involves replacing 'and' with 'or'. Light is waves or light is particles, depending on the experiment you do. An electron has a position or it has a momentum, depending on what you measure. The same is happening with black holes. Either we describe the stuff that fell into the horizon in terms of things behind the horizon, or we describe it in terms of the Hawking radiation that comes out." The implications are unsettling, to say the least. Sure, quantum mechanics tells us that an object's location can't always be pinpointed. But that applies to things like electrons, not elephants, and it usually spans tiny distances, not light years. It is the large scale that makes this so surprising, Susskind says. In principle, if the black hole is big enough, the two versions of the same elephant could be separated by billions of light years. "People always thought quantum ambiguity was a small-scale phenomenon," he adds. "We're learning that the more quantum gravity becomes important, the more huge-scale ambiguity comes into play." All this amounts to the fact that an object's location in space-time is no longer indisputable. Susskind calls this "a new form of relativity". Einstein took factors that were thought to be invariable - an object's length and the passage of time - and showed that they were relative to the motion of an observer. The location of an object in space or in time could only be defined with respect to an observer, but its location in space-time was certain. Now that notion has been shattered, says Susskind, and an object's location in space-time depends on an observer's state of motion with respect to a horizon. What's more, this new type of "non-locality" is not just for black holes. It occurs anywhere a boundary separates regions of the universe that can't communicate with each other. Such horizons are more common than you might think. Anything that accelerates - the Earth, the solar system, the Milky Way - creates a horizon. Even if you're out running, there are regions of space-time from which light would never reach you if you kept speeding up. Those inaccessible regions are beyond your horizon. As researchers forge ahead in their quest to unify quantum mechanics and gravity, non-locality may help point the way. For instance, quantum gravity should obey the holographic principle. That means there might be redundant information and fewer important dimensions of space-time in the theory. "This has to be part of the understanding of quantum gravity," Giddings says. "It's likely that this black hole information paradox will lead to a revolution at least as profound as the advent of quantum mechanics." This paradox will lead to a revolution as profound as the birth of quantum mechanics That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe. source | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
There are a series of Docus about this kinda stuff if you find it interesting. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3012_elegant.html Hour 1: Einstein's Dream Hour 2: String's The Thing Hour 3: Welcome to the 11th Dimension definitely worth a Torrent. It basically starts out by explaining that if nothing is faster than the speed of light, then that means gravity or gravitrons are the same speed. So in an example, they say if the sun just up and vanished, would we instantly fly straight out? Or since sunlight takes 8minutes to reach earth, that we would continue to orbit until they reach us and then fly out? later they actually get into this concept of directions. and that's where string theories start. Instead of the normal stuff like: time, and spacial movements (up,down,left,right,back, and forth) which we call 4d. It claims that there might be other dimensions or extensions of our dimension that are always around us but we just cannot touch or reach into. 3 hours of mind warping. | ||
![]()
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
| ||
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
On February 07 2010 14:56 dethrawr wrote: If you're not going to read, then why +1? tl;dr we are actually living in a flat 2d universe projected like a hologram from a credit card. Also, suck it up and read it, it takes 5 minutes. This is not the right attitude. Clearly you are new to the forum, and there are rules against posting a wall of copied and pasted text. When someone informs you of your mistakes, please react better. Just saying the article is "interesting" isn't enough, as anything is bound to be interesting to some people. If you can't muster enough effort to produce a decent summary, then you probably shouldn't post it; especially if it's on a topic that is highly scientific. This is what you should do: Ie, post the article here, post a summary for the folks with short attention spans, post your take on the situation, etc. FYI: I read it, I didn't find it interesting at all because I could not appreciate its implications. | ||
gyth
657 Posts
"The key thing is that such experiments are sensitive to changes in the length of the rulers that are far smaller than the diameter of a proton," says Hogan. That sounded crazy when I read it, but if you'd like to read more. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2000-3/ | ||
Kyhol
Canada2574 Posts
| ||
251
United States1401 Posts
| ||
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
On February 09 2010 15:19 ghermination wrote: while i vaguely understand the concept they're trying to explain, the idea that we are all 3 dimensional projections determined by the interactions of particles at the size of a Planck length is completely pointless, considering it won't effect our day to day lives whatsoever. Discovering such a fundamental truth about the nature of our existence would open up so many scientific doors -- a unifying theory, just to start -- that I'm positive it would eventually have a dramatic effect on our daily lives. Course we're probably not holograms. | ||
bellweather
United States404 Posts
Anywho, does someone more knowledgeable about physics want to explain the theory outlined in the article in greater detail? How do we interact on a 3 dimensional level with other objects if we're simply a projection emanating from a 2d space? I imagine this has something to do with the particularities of space-time, but I don't see how exactly. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
| ||
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
I won't say it's not a big deal, but it's more of a different way of seeing things than a matrix-like revolution. It's similar to how Einstein said that all physics in a 3d universe with one time dimension can be thought of as happening in a 4d spacetime universe. The actual physical effects of the hologram theory only appears at very small length scales, just like relativity only manifests itself at high speeds and high gravitational curvature. I dunno, the fact that everything might be flat is cool but I think relativity's 4 dimensions is a lot harder to really wrap your head around. | ||
Navane
Netherlands2748 Posts
| ||
Khul Sadukar
Australia1735 Posts
this article reminded me of the end in MIB 2. (our universe could be just inside a locker of a train station on another plane) not sure how exactly as i kept reading it became clear i wasnt interpreting it right, lol. the impression i got was: there is a source of light far beyond the boundary of our cosmic horizon which creates a hologram effect in which we reside? | ||
arcticStorm
United States295 Posts
| ||
| ||