Holographic Universe

[marevangel]

I read a recent article on this topic that reported on new mathematical proof of this holographic universe idea. This article immediately triggered a nagging question for me, prompting me to search the internet for an answer, but with no success. So, I am posting this for some of your ideas on my question:

 

If we are indeed some sort of string holographic image, where does our "reality" exist? Are we living our actual lives in the 2D alternate universe?....or is that 2D universe purely info and data? Or is our reality this 3D projection? I'm so confused.

[EdEarl]

No one knows for sure, but mathematics tends to indicate there is not much difference between a 2D holographic universe and 10D universe. However, IMO entanglement of particles doing things simultaneously at any distance seems to favor a 2D holographic universe. But, everyday experience screams 3D plus time.

[Craer]

I would consider it a linguistic operation, within the first dimension you have a language similar to binary all on or off positions.

As you progress through the other dimensions the first language is conjugated or paraphrased into a simple( r) string with (more)complex implications.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Craer

[md65536]

"Where" refers to locations within a space. Locations in a 2d space representation of the universe don't have to relate to those in another 3d (or 4d) space. The 2d space can be separate, so there need not be a "where" in 3d space it can be found. For example, higher dimensions don't need to be located somewhere in 3d space.

 

Still, locations in the 2 different spaces *can* relate. If the new stuff is still the same as the last time I read about this, then it's possible that all locations in the 3d space map to all locations on the 2d surface and vice versa. This is part of the holographic principle, I think... and it is like a hologram: Every part of a 2d hologram contains information from all over the 3d image it represents. You can see the different parts of a 3d image by looking at the same 2d location from different angles. Conversely, you can fix your eyes on a single point in the 3d image, and see it by looking at different parts of the 2d image from different angles. So essentially, a location on the 2d surface is "everywhere" in the 3d universe, and vice versa.

 

The geometry of reality is defined by measurements in our 3d (or 4d if you want) universe. I don't think anyone will try to redefine reality just because it turns out to be emergent from some different underlying fundamental physical entity or whatever. But who knows. It should be possible to define measurements and locations in a 3d universe, and some other set of measurements of a 2d universe. Then I imagine you'd have different concepts of "where" that apply to the respective spaces. Since they both represent the same universe, it's reasonable to expect a mapping between locations of the two.

Edited December 15, 2013 by md65536

[SaganWannaBeWannaBe]

This all sounds very interesting. But what are the physical implications? I know I'm just a layman but I can't help wondering if the mathematicians are making what's called a category mistake. That's when you attribute properties to something that cannot have those properties. An example would be to say the various coordinate systems one can use to navigate the globe actually and really exist and can be pointed at. Or more simply, that matrix of numbers has a mass of 234. (Number matrices aren't things that have mass, even though the sentence seems to make sense.)

[hoola]

in keeping with my thinking that the universe evolved from simpler to more complex, a 2D generation of a 3D state does fit the requirements But, if you are talking origin theory....I see the universe having come from a zero-dimension singularity, and the dimensions being described mathematically within the void. This is to say it went through a phase of a sort of hologram projected from a 2D surface, as a maturation process of universe as it went through the various stages of description of energy/mass to actual reality. I see the dimensions as the final set of algorithms developed within the singularity, and with the expression of these dimensions, the big bang was produced by liberating previously described primordial energy . So, in getting from zero dimensions to 3 ( or beyond), I have no problem with moving through a 2D temporary phase.... I envision the expression of the dimensions with....first a single line intersecting the singularity, then the line becoming a plane, then the plane becoming the universe. In this scenario, a 3D universe is projected from the 2D plane...and at that stage goes from description to reality. A possible validation of this idea of progression of dimension expression is an effect on the shape of the universe today, and be evident in the CMB maps, perhaps in the "line" Tegmark shows in his map.