Why suspect a holographic universe?

[wallflash]

What causes science to speculate about the possibility we are a holographic universe? All other strange ideas have some reasoning behind them. We suspect dark matter because the universe doesnt act as expected based on visible matter. We suspect dark energy because the universe is expanding , and doing so faster than we can explain. But a holographic universe? What suggests this? Is it just a stab in the dark because other ideas like string theory are not coming through as hoped? Or is there some unexplainable observation that we think might be due to our universe being a holographic one?

Edited April 10, 2017 by wallflash

[MigL]

It is simply a model that attempts to describe some of the fundamental qualities of the universe.

In some circumstances the universe can be 'described' as a hologram with all of its information encoded on the lower dimensional surface of its boundary.

[wallflash]

It is simply a model that attempts to describe some of the fundamental qualities of the universe.

In some circumstances the universe can be 'described' as a hologram with all of its information encoded on the lower dimensional surface of its boundary.

I get that part. My question is more long the lines of 'is there any logical reason to suspect this is this case'? We have reasons to suspect DM and DE. We have reasons to suspect there is a 9th planet ( or 10th, I prefer 10th) we havent spotted yet . We had reason to believe in the Higgs boson.

 

So is there some evidence or observation that serves as a logical segue into suspecting the universe is a hologram? Or is it more of a shot in the dark, something thought up while leaning back in your chair after yet another failure, running your hands through your hair in frustration, and after clasping them behind your head to lean back and consider yet another failure you think "well, maybe we dont need 11 dimensions,maybe its just 2 and the rest is just a hologram" ?

[Strange]

I think the original idea came from the study of black holes where it was noted that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its area not its volume. In string theory, it seems there are analogous results (which I don't even begin to understand).

 

Currently, there is no evidence for this hypothesis:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/

http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/what-fermilabs-holometer-experiment.html

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

[MigL]

Again, it is a MODEL, which, if applied correctly and in the appropriate circumstances, can make valid predictions about the universe we live in. NOT that the universe is necessarily a hologram ( as Strange has pointed out ).

 

Something simple that we are all familiar with is light. Consider the wave model of light, when applied correctly, it makes all sorts of valuable predictions. But when applied incorrectly, such as with the photoelectric effect, it gives predictions which don't jive with observations. The particle model of light does work with the photoelectric effect, but doesn't make valid predictions in cases like diffraction. So what is light, a wave, a particle, both, or neither ?

 

Don't confuse reality with the model used to describe it.

[wallflash]

Again, it is a MODEL, which, if applied correctly and in the appropriate circumstances, can make valid predictions about the universe we live in. NOT that the universe is necessarily a hologram ( as Strange has pointed out ).

 

Something simple that we are all familiar with is light. Consider the wave model of light, when applied correctly, it makes all sorts of valuable predictions. But when applied incorrectly, such as with the photoelectric effect, it gives predictions which don't jive with observations. The particle model of light does work with the photoelectric effect, but doesn't make valid predictions in cases like diffraction. So what is light, a wave, a particle, both, or neither ?

 

Don't confuse reality with the model used to describe it.

 

 

Im not sure what you mean by "just a model"? Experiments were done to see if in fact our universe is a projection of data from 2D sphere surrounding the visible universe. You seem to suggest that the idea is just some tool of some sort that isnt meant to be taken as reality, but just a way to explore deeper into the physics of our universe. The experiments suggest that the idea that we are in fact simply projections of data from a 2D universe was taken seriously by the experimenters, and not merely a tool for mental experiments.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/

Edited April 12, 2017 by wallflash

[Delta1212]

 

 

Im not sure what you mean by "just a model"? Experiments were done to see if in fact our universe is a projection of data from 2D sphere surrounding the visible universe. You seem to suggest that the idea is just some tool of some sort that isnt meant to be taken as reality, but just a way to explore deeper into the physics of our universe. The experiments suggest that the idea that we are in fact simply projections of data from a 2D universe was taken seriously by the experimenters, and not merely a tool for mental experiments.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/

There is not a clear cut difference between those two things when you dig into the nuts and bolts of science.

 

All of our rigorous descriptions of reality are really just models used to predict behaviors, and all of those models are tested in various ways to see how well they line up with actual results and where there are gaps that need to be filled or that might require a new model.

 

They're like maps. You can have topographical maps and road maps and maps depicting rainfall and satellite maps.

 

All of these maps represent some aspect of an area, and if you ask which is the best map, the answer will depend on what exactly it is you want to know about an area. But none of them are the "real" map. As always, the map is not the terrain. That doesn't mean that you can check the map against the terrain to see how accurately it is being represented.