New Holographic theory from Southampton, UK; existential crisis anxiety again

[Renardo1]

Hello, I know I posted a question that was similar to this one a while ago, but this one is very new and claims to have "substantial evidence" that we live in a Hologram. Here is the article claiming to have substantial evidence that we live in a hologram: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page

 

So my main question is: Does this study discussed in this article really prove that we live in Hologram and that we are not real or is it still just a theory. why does it claim to have substantial evidence and is that substantial evidence enough evidence to say that we live in a hologram? Thank you all!

[StringJunky]

Hello, I know I posted a question that was similar to this one a while ago, but this one is very new and claims to have "substantial evidence" that we live in a Hologram. Here is the article claiming to have substantial evidence that we live in a hologram: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page

 

So my main question is: Does this study discussed in this article really prove that we live in Hologram and that we are not real or is it still just a theory. why does it claim to have substantial evidence and is that substantial evidence enough evidence to say that we live in a hologram? Thank you all!

You are making greater leaps of imagination than the scientists are suggesting. Even if this holographic theory holds water we'll still be 'real', to us, which is a rabbit-hole you don't want to go down when thinking about what reality is. It doesn't prove anything, it's a line of investigation they following which seems promising to them; it's a work-in-progress.

[Strange]

So my main question is: Does this study discussed in this article really prove that we live in Hologram and that we are not real or is it still just a theory. why does it claim to have substantial evidence and is that substantial evidence enough evidence to say that we live in a hologram? Thank you all!

 

 

1. It is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. You never prove anything in science, you just elevate it to the level of a theory if there is enough evidence. There is currently zero evidence that we live in a hologram.

 

2. Even if the holographic principle is correct, it doesn't mean that you "live in a hologram".

 

3. Even if the holographic principle is correct, it doesn't mean that you are "not real".

 

4. "You Aren't Living in a Hologram, Even if You Wish You Were"

http://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

[Renardo1]

Thank you guys. So it is safe to say that the title is misleading by saying that it has "substantial evidence"?

[Strange]

Thank you guys. So it is safe to say that the title is misleading by saying that it has "substantial evidence"?

 

 

They may have "substantial evidence" that is consistent with the holographic principle. But that is a long way from confirming the holographic principle. And that is completely different from "living in a hologram".

[Lord Antares]

Yes, Strange is correct. They may or may not have evidence which says the holographic principle may be plausible, but it has no relation to reality at all or a way to prove it on a useful basis.

 

I would draw a parallel to the definitions of dimension higher than 3 or 4. If you don't know what I'm referring to, there are theories in modern physics (particularly quantum) that define higher dimensions, such as past and present dimensions, ''superdimensions'', higher spacial dimensions etc. These cannot be proven or disproven as they have no basis in reality. They don't mean anything themselves so there is no way to prove their usefulness. Nothing is gained from hypothesizing about them.

 

Similarly, nothing is gained from ''proving'' this holographic theory. It is impossible to prove, but even if it wasn't, absolutely nothing would change with this new knowledge.

[louis wu]

The actual paper is here.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878.pdf

 

The authors do not claim in any way to have proven any holographic principle.

 

They do claim that some holographic models are consistent with the Planck satellite data and may be competitive with ΛCDM.

[Itoero]

A better title would be: "Study reveals new data to believe in the holographic principle"

[Strange]

Came across this article today which might be of interest to those following this thread

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170223-bootstrap-geometry-theory-space/

[StringJunky]

A better title would be: "Study reveals new data to believe in the holographic principle as useful"

[MigL]

Holographic 'models' means that reality ( whatever that is ), in some circumstances, acts like a holograph,

In GR, in some circumstances, it acts like a warped/curved co-ordinate system.

In QM, sometimes it acts like waves, sometimes like particles.

Etc. etc. ...

Edited March 5, 2017 by MigL

[Itoero]

Many physicists think that entanglement builds space time...which is a holographic idea.

Here is a paper from Hirosi Ooguri &co about this subject.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1879.pdf

[Itoero]

The Fermilab Holometer (in Illinois) is one of the most sensitive laser interferometers.

It should be able to detect holographic fluctuations in space time.

It's claimed the Holometer can detect fluctuations in the light of a single attometer.

The Holometer basically seeks holographic 'noise' in reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holometer

Edited March 9, 2017 by Itoero