Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Good news, everyone. It turns out we're not actually living in a gigantic space hologram   (wired.com) divider line 86
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

7072 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Jul 2011 at 2:01 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-05 11:48:51 AM  
Good news, everyone! I've invented a device that makes you read that headline in my voice!
 
2011-07-05 11:57:34 AM  
"That means that any quantum grains that exist would have to measure 10^-48 metres or smaller.

This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,"


Muy interesante... someone else needs to verify this.

/that sound - ed witten partially asplode
 
2011-07-05 12:03:16 PM  
An astrophysicist's attempt to measure quantum "fuzziness" to find out if we're living in a hologram has been headed off at the pass by results suggesting that we're probably not.

Thanks?
 
2011-07-05 12:27:27 PM  
That's truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.
 
2011-07-05 12:38:40 PM  
But what about Planck's Constant??? WHAT ABOUT IT, HUH???


/read too much Asimov
 
2011-07-05 12:39:32 PM  
computer - end program.

....

nope, still here.
 
2011-07-05 01:13:10 PM  
Big discoveries don't go "Eureka!" They go "Huh, that's funny".
 
2011-07-05 01:34:58 PM  

Weaver95: computer - end program.

....

nope, still here.


How do you know you're not in a hologram within a hologram? O_O
 
2011-07-05 01:50:36 PM  

gameshowhost: Weaver95: computer - end program.

....

nope, still here.

How do you know you're not in a hologram within a hologram? O_O


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAM
 
2011-07-05 01:54:11 PM  

Weaver95: computer - end program.

....

nope, still here.


No silly. You say 'Arch' or 'Exit.' But only if the computer allows you.
 
2011-07-05 02:03:58 PM  
Yawn. Another headline about Plancking.
 
2011-07-05 02:05:14 PM  
G-D it, now you tell me. What the hell am I going to do with all these dead hookers now?!?!
 
2011-07-05 02:08:50 PM  

PsyLord: G-D it, now you tell me. What the hell am I going to do with all these dead hookers now?!?!


Fine cheap motels and stuff them in the mattresses?
 
2011-07-05 02:12:31 PM  

PsyLord: G-D it, now you tell me. What the hell am I going to do with all these dead hookers now?!?!


Call these guys:
Link (new window)

f33.yahoofs.com

They have a two for one deal going on.
 
2011-07-05 02:12:41 PM  

PsyLord: G-D it, now you tell me. What the hell am I going to do with all these dead hookers now?!?!


Taking care not to blaspheme while still making a dead hooker joke in the same breath, now that is the kind of laissez faire attitude I can get behind
 
2011-07-05 02:16:09 PM  
www.websters-online-dictionary.org
How reassuring.
 
2011-07-05 02:22:46 PM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2011-07-05 02:25:40 PM  
zulfiqar.typepad.com

Woah.
 
2011-07-05 02:26:15 PM  
The universe is vast. The stars are countless in number. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
 
2011-07-05 02:39:24 PM  
What lack of fuzzy space-time pixellation may look like... or something. It's named "IBIS", that much is certain.
 
2011-07-05 02:39:33 PM  
Oh, so you mean we're actually living in REALITY...not a projection of it.

Man, is that going to upset the hippies.

/much less the techno-goths.
 
2011-07-05 02:39:43 PM  
It turns out we're not actually living in a gigantic space hologram

We are actually dead?
 
2011-07-05 02:40:32 PM  
Hogan's interpretation of results from the GEO600 gravitational wave experiment had shown a quantum fuzziness - a sort of pixellation - at incredibly small scales, suggesting that what was perceive as the universe might be projected from a two-dimensional shell at its edge.

Apparently, you really can tell by the pixels.
 
2011-07-05 02:43:32 PM  
It's weird, feeling superior to religious nuts AND quantum physicists at the same time.
 
2011-07-05 02:45:54 PM  
Pretty sure that the holographic principle has nothing to do with magical space simulations.
 
2011-07-05 02:46:50 PM  

ArtosRC: The universe is vast. The stars are countless in number. You are likely to be eaten by agrue.


1.bp.blogspot.com


/hot-unlike a freeze ray
 
2011-07-05 03:08:34 PM  
Craig Hogan's theory/hypothesis/whatever has appeared on Fark before, so this could technically have a "followup" tag.

His theory/hypothesis/whatever was disproved (or shown to be extremely unlikely) 6 months to a year ago, so this followup article might also be a repeat.

/yay
 
2011-07-05 03:12:58 PM  
Yeah? But did they prove that our solar system isn't just an atom in some giant's finger? Huh? Did they?

/whooooah.
 
2011-07-05 03:17:34 PM  
Or the Universe was upraded to Bluray/HD...
 
2011-07-05 03:25:52 PM  

Makh: Weaver95: computer - end program.

....

nope, still here.

No silly. You say 'Arch' or 'Exit.' But only if the computer allows you.


eXistenZ is paused!
 
2011-07-05 03:26:06 PM  
You know this is just another storyline they can milk. It will turn out that the Ultimate Warrior messed up Hogan's numbers, which will result in a big match at SummerSlam.
 
2011-07-05 03:35:02 PM  
What if these "scientists" are just holograms who were inserted to keep us from asking questions?
 
2011-07-05 04:04:10 PM  

bingethinker: Yawn. Another headline about Plancking.


well done sir
 
2011-07-05 04:08:23 PM  
So? Now prove to me I'm not just a brain in a vat.
 
2011-07-05 04:10:06 PM  

rogue49: Oh, so you mean we're actually living in REALITY...not a projection of it.

Man, is that going to upset the hippies.

/much less the techno-goths.


I'd be just as upset to be a hologram.
 
2011-07-05 04:16:19 PM  
Time for The Rimmer Experience!! (new window)"
 
2011-07-05 04:21:34 PM  

david1963: So? Now prove to me I'm not just a brain in a vat.


You are a butterfly, and you are merely dreaming that you are just a brain in a vat.
 
2011-07-05 04:36:03 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Pretty sure that the holographic principle has nothing to do with magical space simulations.


Not in the least. But hey, holograms!
 
2011-07-05 04:48:43 PM  

xanadian: Good news, everyone! I've invented a device that makes you read that headline in my voice!


okay I'll do it...

...FFFFFUUUUUUUUU-
 
2011-07-05 05:04:11 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Pretty sure that the holographic principle has nothing to do with magical space simulations.


It's far from obvious, and TFA doesn't help at all, but basically this is the connection:

If the holographic principle is correct, the universe can be described in two equivalent ways*, either as 3D space with gravity, or a 2D surface without gravity. The two descriptions superficially look nothing like each other, but turn out to be equivalent (or as physicists say, "dual").

Now, physicists also believe that there is a limit to the amount of information (or entropy) that a surface can contain.** (The rationale for this comes from Hawking's work on black holes, but it's a long digression.) So there's a maximum to the information that a 2D description of the universe can represent -- and because of the duality, there must also be the same limit on the information that the 3D description can represent. But if 3D spacetime is continuous rather than quantized, it could contain unlimited amounts of information. So we conclude that if space is not quantized, there is no limit on the information it could hold, so it cannot have a dual description on a 2D boundary.***


--
*Despite the goofy descriptions that popular science mags love, it doesn't make any sense to ask whether we "really" are in a hologram or 3D space. Both are just mathematical descriptions of the laws of physics. I wish science journalists would spend less effort on wowing readers with how wacky physics is and more effort actually, you know, explaining things.

**Strictly speaking, information isn't "on" a 2D boundary, but "projected through" a 2D boundary. But this is close enough for non-mathematical descriptions.

***This still works if the universe is infinite in extent. The argument is subtle, but you can show that an infinite 2D boundary could hold "only" a countable infinity of information, while a continuous 3D space could hold an uncountable infinity.
 
2011-07-05 05:19:23 PM  

czetie: ***This still works if the universe is infinite in extent. The argument is subtle, but you can show that an infinite 2D boundary could hold "only" a countable infinity of information, while a continuous 3D space could hold an uncountable infinity.


All infinities are equal, but some infinities are more equal than others.
 
2011-07-05 05:21:17 PM  

czetie: Despite the goofy descriptions that popular science mags love, it doesn't make any sense to ask whether we "really" are in a hologram or 3D space. Both are just mathematical descriptions of the laws of physics. I wish science journalists would spend less effort on wowing readers with how wacky physics is and more effort actually, you know, explaining things.


no shiat! one of the biggest problems in science today is that scientists make no effort to bring information tot he people. there's very little about quantum physics that is just 'too difficult' to explain to people. weird, sure, but not impossible to understand.

and while the holographic principle is one of the stranger ideas out there, it's also a lovely way to introduce some pretty fundamental ideas about what theoretical physics supposes. explaining the puzzle of how a vibration multiplies against another vibration to create a dimension is kind of one of the most important ideas to grasp about string theory. it's the equivalent of explaining how matter is made up of molecules.

and yet, most people who read anything about this will get hung up on their own cheezy sci-fi interpretation of holograms (!) and miss out on understanding the really interesting details. because maybe, just maybe, more people understanding the ideas might mean we come up with better answers...
 
2011-07-05 05:46:52 PM  
Subby fails. It said "Universe almost certainly not a hologram".

Oh, and this:

i102.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-05 06:01:50 PM  
?
 
2011-07-05 06:04:51 PM  

Tumunga: ?


if you could phrase that in the form of a question, i'd give a shot at answering it for you
 
2011-07-05 06:07:51 PM  
 
2011-07-05 06:41:08 PM  

abb3w: Big discoveries don't go "Eureka!" They go "Huh, that's funny".


Scientific progress goes boink, stupid
 
2011-07-05 06:57:49 PM  
Of course we don't live in a giant space hologram. We live at one level of a giant space fractal image. No matter how far you zoom in there will always be infinitely more detail beneath you as well as above you.
 
2011-07-05 07:11:17 PM  

minitrue noram: Tumunga: ?

if you could phrase that in the form of a question, i'd give a shot at answering it for you


Thanks for the offer, but I wouldn't understand the answer anyway. I make pizzas for a livin'.
 
2011-07-05 07:41:40 PM  
Oh, we're not in a hologram?! Thank god I didn't activate the Chinese Invasion simulation program that turned off all failsafes!
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report