The Matrix has... everyone.
A gravitational wave detection physics experiment has turned up data which may support the "holographic universe" theory.Link to the news article
Excerpt:
If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle are true.[ --- ]
Hogan agrees that if the holographic principle is confirmed, it rules out all approaches to quantum gravity that do not incorporate the holographic principle. Conversely, it would be a boost for those that do - including some derived from string theory and something called matrix theory. "Ultimately, we may have our first indication of how space-time emerges out of quantum theory." As serendipitous discoveries go, it's hard to get more ground-breaking than that.
From "You are a Hologram" issue 2691 of New Scientist magazine, page 24-27. The full article contains more information and ideas; see the link.
Neo wrote:
Whoa...
That's a bit of a mindjob. It's fascinating theory though.
You call that a mindjob, in this place?
LOL
It only goes to prove what many who frequent this place have suspected. The real world isnt real!
THIS is the thing I've sought to understand since I watched The Matrix in 1999.
Bill Hicks wrote:
"...'Is this real, or is this just a ride?'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RQmnSJoRg
I love New Scientist.
O_O
Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.
I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.
Travi wrote:
Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.
Why is it stupid? The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now. I fist heard of it in the early '90's. If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know. And as always, Show your work.
Pyraci wrote:
THIS is the thing I've sought to understand since I watched The Matrix in 1999. Bill Hicks wrote:"...'Is this real, or is this just a ride?'"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RQmnSJoRg
Bill Hicks.
Yes... Yes.
machete wrote:
You call that a mindjob, in this place? LOL It only goes to prove what many who frequent this place have suspected. The real world isnt real!
That was more of a comment about the science and physics behind the theory. I know which message board I'm on.
Thanks for posting this.
Yes, almost all physicists and many mathematicians would know this theory especially in recent years.
It's actually very interesting and connects to many different theories if you give it a chance. [short list includes quantum gravity, string & M-theory, gravity in higher dimensions, cosmology]
Being a projection on a brane doesn't necessarily make you any more or less "fake," so no need for hurt feelings - you can enjoy it.
It may also help to remember that a scientific theory, take for example Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general theory of relativity, doesn't preclude a 'better' theory from coming along and replacing it. Each successive theory usually owes a great debt to the work that came before it. In the appropriate limit (low velocity, low energy/ mass/ gravity), Einstein's general theory corresponds to Newton's theory (in most cases). So, you get a nice comforting reduction to let you know that even though Newton didn't write down the full story, Newtonian gravity gets you a pretty good answer in the appropriate domain. In quantum mechanics, you tend to see correspondence to Newtonian mechanics in the low energy/mass, low velocity, large spatial dimensions limit.
One would need a theory other than Newton's if one wanted to look in that different domain. Sometimes if you use a purely old-school classical theory, you get the wrong answer. You might be off by a factor of two, like in Thomas precession.
If you want to build a missile guidance system or a GPS that works, for example, you'd better consider something other than Newton's laws if you actually hope to get where you want to go.
Take comfort that the universe is a little less boring of a place than most people once thought it was.
Suddenly this makes alot more sense!WHOA!
MxO-PhanthomZtryker wrote:
Sorry phan, but since I live in Texas, that link wasn't quite as random as you probobly intended.
imax wrote:
MxO-PhanthomZtryker wrote:Suddenly this makes alot more sense!WHOA!Sorry phan, but since I live in Texas, that link wasn't quite as random as you probobly intended.
I need to move there..... NOW!
=P JAYKAY
Villemar_MxO wrote:
Travi wrote:Hah, now you know that somewhere, there is some moron who is actually sitting behind his desk saying: "OMG! IT'S TRUE!" because that particular individual lacks any form of logicial and/or reasonable thought process.I still fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity.Why is it stupid? The idea has been around in physics circles for quite a while now. I fist heard of it in the early '90's. If have any other data to specifically refute the theory, let us know. And as always, Show your work.
First off, I never pay attention to physics - the only laws of physics I understand are gravity, laws of inertia, terminal velocity of a freefall, and the rate at which an object falls. I'm not refuting anything, I'm merely stating my opinion, is that a crime now? My own reasons are simple, I believe certain things (such as the existance of our world, ourselves and so forth), do not require a physical explanation. I was raised to believe the way things came about according to the Bible. I won't go into that because it's not allowed on the forums. But when people ask me why I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, or why I don't believe in evolution, it's because I believe that life doesn't require an explanation and that things came about as stated in Genesis. I only believe that I'm not in charge of the way things run, and that it's a power higher than anyone on this Earth.
So, in essence, any data I have - you wouldn't accept, because you wouldn't believe it anyhow, would you? So...why should I have accept your data, because I wouldn't believe it anyhow, would I?
To restate, I disagree with this because my own beliefs don't require an explanation to life. Therefore, I fail to see where people get these ideas, it's beyond any form of stupidity. People can believe whatever they want, it's their own opinion - like I have mine. I just find their's a bit farfetch'd, and the fact that people have to go to such great lengths to prove that our world is fake is just plain stupidity in my eyes.
