Holographic universe

[jason.p]

The holographic universe is a fascinating concept but it appears to be based on one experiment in 1982 from which David Bohm derived his theory. Has Alain Aspect's original experiment been repeated anywhere? Can someone please explain (or direct me to an explanation) in "lay" terms the basis of this experiment.

Thanks.

[jason.p]

I gather from the lack of response that this was either a dull question or posted in the wrong forum (or possibly both ). As I am still interested

(esp in the basics of the Aspect experiment) can someone point me in the right direction. I have done the Google/ Wikki things but would like to see discussion/arguments from experts which usually tend to throw more light on a subject.

Thanks. Jason

[mathematic]

I am not an expert. However, as I understand it Aspect's experiment has to do with Bell's inequality (quantum entanglement). I have no idea how this connects to the idea of the holographic universe.

[DrRocket]

I am not an expert. However, as I understand it Aspect's experiment has to do with Bell's inequality (quantum entanglement). I have no idea how this connects to the idea of the holographic universe.

 

Alaiin Aspect's experiment is a realization of the thought experiment proposed byEinstein, Poldalsky and Rosen. It is intimately related to Bell's inequality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the holographic principle -- which was first proposed by Gerard 'tHooft.

[36grit]

I like the idea offered by the theory. I've watched several of these shows on you tube, and the history channel. The idea that the universe is projected out of our own conscienceness is pretty wild.

The thing that these videos seem to forget is the fact that we havn't been around as long as the universe. To reason that the universe came from an original being's thoughts, well, now your in my little campground of thoughts, hypothesees and theories. I think a lot of real scientists and philolsophers and religious scholars are trying to bridge the gap between religion and physics.

I most certainly believe that the gravity of our thoughts, and collective thoughts, makes up the field of statistical probabilities that govern our future on both large and small scales.

If one could say that the gravity of a thought is the same as the gravity in physics, and applied it to a cascading plane where by gravity decays into expansion planes of positive charge and then negative charge and then divides all three by the speed of light, you'd have a universe. Talk like this will get you busted down into the speculations department though, and I guess, that's where it belongs. See you there.

[jason.p]

From what I understand Alaiin Aspect's experiment demonstrated how subatomic particles remain in contact no matter what the distance.

David Bohm (possibly amongst others) inferred the holographic universe could be an explanation of how particles could "communicate" over such distances without breaking the light speed barrier. That is how I saw a connection between the experiment and the theory. I don't know how David Bohm was regarded amonst his peers. I'm sure he was well respected. He seems to me to have had leanings toward the metaphysical which in itself is no bad thing (IMHO).

[IM Egdall]

The holographic universe is a fascinating concept but it appears to be based on one experiment in 1982 from which David Bohm derived his theory. Has Alain Aspect's original experiment been repeated anywhere? Can someone please explain (or direct me to an explanation) in "lay" terms the basis of this experiment.

Thanks.

 

 

The Alain Aspect experiment has been repeated and confirmed a number of times. It is based on Bell's theorum and has to do with Quantum Entanglement. I'll try the latter in simple terms.

 

Consider an atom which simultaneously emits a pair of photons in two different directions. Per Conservation of Angular Momentum, the random polarizations of the two simultaneously emitted photons must be opposite values. Say one photon travels to the left and the other to the right. When they are say 10 feet apart, we decide to measure the polarization of the left-moving photon. Since the polarization of the photons must be opposite, as soon as we measure the left one we immediately know that the right-moving photon (now some 10 feet away) has the opposite polarization value.

 

The key here is that the polarization value of a photon is random. So there is a connection between the random characterstics of the two photons. It would be like flipping a coin in New York and one in LA -- when one shows heads, the other always shows tails.

 

Eisntein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that the polarization of the photons was set as soon as they were emitted by the atom. And all the experiement did was find out what these previously programmed values were. Quantum physicists argued that the attributes of the photon are in limbo, unknown until you do the measurement. John Bell came up with a way to test which is right. Aspect ran Bell's experiment and it showed that the photon's attributes (like polarization) are in limbo, are random, until measured. This is called non-local. The probabilities of the two random attributes are connected (and represented in quantum mechanics by a single probability amplitude (wave) function).

 

For more on this, I suggest you Google "Quantum Entanglement" and "Bell's theorum" and read the various links. Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, has a nice lay explanation of all this, and the Bohm theory.I recommend you read it.

Edited December 27, 2011 by IM Egdall

[DrRocket]

I like the idea offered by the theory. I've watched several of these shows on you tube, and the history channel. The idea that the universe is projected out of our own conscienceness is pretty wild.

The thing that these videos seem to forget is the fact that we havn't been around as long as the universe. To reason that the universe came from an original being's thoughts, well, now your in my little campground of thoughts, hypothesees and theories. I think a lot of real scientists and philolsophers and religious scholars are trying to bridge the gap between religion and physics.

I most certainly believe that the gravity of our thoughts, and collective thoughts, makes up the field of statistical probabilities that govern our future on both large and small scales.

If one could say that the gravity of a thought is the same as the gravity in physics, and applied it to a cascading plane where by gravity decays into expansion planes of positive charge and then negative charge and then divides all three by the speed of light, you'd have a universe. Talk like this will get you busted down into the speculations department though, and I guess, that's where it belongs. See you there.

 

I have no idea what it is that you have been watching or reading, but you have described nothing that even vaguely represents the holographic principle proposed by 'tHooft. What you describe is some sort of New Age tripe, if indeed it is an accurate description of anything at all. Whatever it is, it is is not physics.

 

The History Channel is a very poor source for any scientific topic. Much sensationalism. Little accuracy or gravitas.

 

From what I understand Alaiin Aspect's experiment demonstrated how subatomic particles remain in contact no matter what the distance.

David Bohm (possibly amongst others) inferred the holographic universe could be an explanation of how particles could "communicate" over such distances without breaking the light speed barrier. That is how I saw a connection between the experiment and the theory. I don't know how David Bohm was regarded amonst his peers. I'm sure he was well respected. He seems to me to have had leanings toward the metaphysical which in itself is no bad thing (IMHO).

 

Bohm started out as a rather mainstream physicist. His book on quantum mechanics (available as a Dover edition) was written during that early period. He later moved a bit farther out on the fringe and introduced a "Bohmian" interpreteation of quantum mechanics that is taken much less seriously, and has largely faded into obscurity and out of current QM texts. It is a valid interpreetation of quantum mechanics, but hardly the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

http://plato.stanfor...ntries/qm-bohm/

 

http://en.wikipedia....hmian_mechanics

 

Adherents of the pilot wave interpretation tend to be rather dogmatic, and fail to recognize that interpretations that produce the same measurable predictions are in fact equivalent.

[jason.p]

Thanks IM Egdal and Dr Rocket for explanation and links, I will definitely follow them up. When I get a better understanding I'll probably be back to discuss it in greater depth.

[36grit]

I have no idea what it is that you have been watching or reading, but you have described nothing that even vaguely represents the holographic principle proposed by 'tHooft. What you describe is some sort of New Age tripe, if indeed it is an accurate description of anything at all. Whatever it is, it is is not physics.

 

The History Channel is a very poor source for any scientific topic. Much sensationalism. Little accuracy or gravitas.

 

 

 

 

I thought he was asking about the holographic universe, and not the holographic principle. Sorry.

[Appolinaria]

1325560933[/url]' post='648404']

I thought he was asking about the holographic universe, and not the holographic principle. Sorry.

 

Leave here at once or I shall have you burned at the stake! Rawrrrr!

[Greg Boyles]

I like the idea offered by the theory. I've watched several of these shows on you tube, and the history channel. The idea that the universe is projected out of our own conscienceness is pretty wild.

I don't see how such a hypothesis makes logical sense. How does it account for the fact that the cosmos has clearly existed before there were humans around to project it from their consciousness. Surely it is an unresolvable paradox?

 

I recently watched a documentary where it was suggested that reality as we experience it is a holographic projection from the surface of a black hole, i.e. a 3D projection of a 2D universe.

 

That is logically consistent, if no less bizarre, as the universe can exist with or without humans.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Greg Boyles

[36grit]

I don't see how such a hypothesis makes logical sense. How does it account for the fact that the cosmos has clearly existed before there were humans around to project it from their consciousness. Surely it is an unresolvable paradox?

 

I recently watched a documentary where it was suggested that reality as we experience it is a holographic projection from the surface of a black hole, i.e. a 3D projection of a 2D universe.

 

That is logically consistent, if no less bizarre, as the universe can exist with or without humans.

 

Life, and/or thought, is the prime diminsion. The original singularity of energy. The gravity of a single thought divided by the speed of light created the universe and all the things within it.

Human: To posses infinite possibility within the mind.

 

If we define being human as: to posses infinite possibilities within the mind, and the universe as: a line of possibilities existing in a realm of infinite possibilities, then we could realize what this means, and begin to comprehend the responsibility of free will.

 

Our race is approaching a cross road. We will either destroy all known life in the universe, or spread out all known life in the universe. and much to my own surprise, we are creating a universe within the realms of our own devices. We'll soon be able to bring forth a man right out of the dirt. And yet we deny the most basic of truths, that we were created by a Human.

[PeterJ]

I don't see how such a hypothesis makes logical sense. How does it account for the fact that the cosmos has clearly existed before there were humans around to project it from their consciousness. Surely it is an unresolvable paradox?

 

I recently watched a documentary where it was suggested that reality as we experience it is a holographic projection from the surface of a black hole, i.e. a 3D projection of a 2D universe.

 

That is logically consistent, if no less bizarre, as the universe can exist with or without humans.

The idea would not be that human beings created the universe. It would be that consciousness created it, or that consciousness is it. It is not so odd. One physicist I have read (Greene?) proposes that with no observers to admire it the moon would gradually dissolve into it's atomic constituents. Don't know if that's a wild idea or orthodox, but it seems interesting. At any rate, it is hardly a new idea that everything in the universe is immediately connected, as if sharing a common identity.

 

Re. black hole projections, is there something about Berkenstein bounds here? Never got to the bottom of what these are but wondered if they're relevant.