Printable View
I got the monthly magazine from my alma mater and there was an article about a theoretical physicist by the name of Craig Hogan who is building a device to test his theory that our Universe is really a Hologram. I guess that means we might not be real.
Anyone have any thoughts on this or familiarity with the concept? It appears to be derived from studies of black holes.
Vaguely, i'd have to go and read up on it though, was something to do with there being a finite amount of information or data in the universe, which apparently is what everything consists of once you get down to sub sub atomic etc etc and therefore as there's no differentiation between matter and data it's entirely possible we're part of a simulation. was interesting. I love how theoretical physics often turns into philosophy.
I have always been interested in theoretical physics.
However, I think it is by definition impossible to 'prove' reality.
Everything we experience is a result of sensory input. Think of it like in the Matrix movie. Conceptually, it is impossible to prove that we are not hooked up, matrix-style. The same holds true for the universe in general.
Look at the big bang theory: it says that everything came into being in a point without size. If there is a big crunch at the end and everything is compressed back into that point and annihilated, and there is no 'time' in which things can be measured (since time cannot mathematically exist before the big bang or after the crunch)... did we ever exist at all? do we then exist now? Or are we a dream without substance?
It's been mathematically proven that no system can be proven from within the axioms of that system.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefore I think it is impossible to use our brains to explain our very existence.
Even religion and science are not incompatible, since our understanding fails to accomodate for the things outside our worldview.
Fascinating debates, but you'll keep going for hours on end without any hope of proving anything.
This sort of thing is best discussed with a glass of whisky in front of a campfire.
Btw, we should not try too hard to convince the universe it does not exist.
It might start believing us :)
I do not think it is the same holograms we see on SciFi films, IIRC the whole notion comes from some solutions of string theory equations.
That is where my knowledge on the matter ends.
Decided to google it and here is what came up:
Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As much as I enjoy trying to reason through physics that I don't understand at all and the "science magazine" type articles about what the universe is really like, I always walk away saying to myself "none of that has any impact on my daily life." Case in point, it makes no difference to me if I'm in the Matrix or if my life is real, 'cause either way the world is run by a small group of elites who have men in black suits doing their bidding.
shhhhh!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
Ever since my school days back then i've been interested in mathematics and physics and i've found that understanding even basics of physics will make your everyday life easier. In general, from simple principles you can find out how things work.
Now theoretical physics is something different. Most interesting, even fascinating but -unlike Newtons Principia- trying to understand even tiny small parts of some theories only gives me headache. Some or most of these theories aren't meant to be understood in our reality (well not at least in my reality).
Interesting but too much only makes me feel so long and thank you for the fish.
Time for a terry pratchett quote?
"In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded"
Some people have way too much time on their hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Ah... Sir Terry...Quote:
Originally Posted by tekbow
He's my all time favorite writer. I especially like his darker writings.
The fact that he classifies 'I shall wear midnight' as a story for children is a joke all by itself. :)
Anyway back to the topic at hand. It's true that the more you start to think about the implications of what we know (and don't know) about theoretical physics, the more you start to feel like you're living in a discworld novel.
Therories are opinions with math....And, you know what they say about "opinions"....Opinions are like A-Holes...Everyone has one....It's just that some smell better than others..
The more I hear about the latest theories in Physics, the more I think that the lines start to blur between it and philosophy. Which is funny in a way because, at least in my experience, Physics is considered a "hard" science whereas Philosophy is considered more a liberal arts discipline, or "soft".
In the end, I think all theoretical physics is is mathematicians playing at philosophy, and then sitting around hoping the maths works out and that some experimental physicist will ensure their tenure by validating their educated guesses empirically. In short, its academia.
But anyway, as far as this particular idea goes I have no idea. But from the description it pretty much conforms with my view of the discipline.
James.
I've heard someone theorize that the 'Big Bang' has been going on forever. Nothingness explodes, creating the expanding universe. Eventually the universe reverses and contracts back to a point of nothingness, then it explodes again, over and over again. Of course, when it contracts back to nothing, it wipes out time as well as matter, so there's no 'forever' either. To me it just sounds like the scientific equivalent of 'turtles all the way down' when trying to explain what existed before the Big Bang. Then there's the membrane theory, that universes are created when two 'membranes' made up of 11 dimensions collide with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
My favorite physics experiment is the Double Slit experiment. Basically it shows that particles behave differently when they are being observed. Most subatomic particles behave as both waves and as particles. When single electrons are shot at a screen with two slits in it, they produce a wave pattern on whatever medium is capturing them. If there is something observing the particles as they are being shot at the slits, they produce a particle pattern.
schrodingers cat?
There is really only one first principle: I shave, therefore I am.
I would not want to be doing that testing.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintchase
Theories in the scientific sense are much different from the common usage of the word theory, I think you mean hypotheses are like A-holes?
Sorry, my teacher in school was picky about this and it stayed with me as a result lol
I agree. However, we can use math to work out the area of the a-holes in question. Pi arse squared!! Boom boom!Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
James.
Wow...you're that guy....Quote:
Originally Posted by tekbow
And now for an Adams reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by tekbow
Yes this is all just a simulation. The mice are in charge of it.
What guy? if you mean becoming like my physics teacher, he got funding to go to australia and shoot a rocket into the ionosphere for his doctorate :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintchase
like!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrIdentical
"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
That is awesome! And no, I meant being the grammer police when I said "that guy". It was in jest..I have always jokingly ribbed the "fellow" that always corrects others on the grammerical mistakes as being "that guy". No offense intended...I guess it is more of a personal joke than anything....Quote:
Originally Posted by tekbow
ah i gotcha lol was having a trademak slow moment.
Actually, it wouldn't have been just one moment, but a series many moments in a row. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by tekbow
Wow...you're that meatus....Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating