mike777 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 " this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...ram.html?page=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just thinking out loud as someone who has no friggin' clue what the heck this means, I nonetheless have a thought. If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point." Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point? Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 All I know is that holograms are BAD news...Starfleet should have never installed the damn things. Just how many times did the damn thing take over Starfleet's flagship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point? And if we measure that one point, will the entire universe cease to exist? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The source, my friends, is the alpha and the omega. The ultimate "all in" poker bet. You win or you cease to exist. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 yes what is remarkable is how the laws of thermodyamics apply to black holes, basically the laws of entropy apply to the horizon limit sizes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 That was interesting. Thanks for the link, Mike. A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!). So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists :) But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just thinking out loud as someone who has no friggin' clue what the heck this means, I nonetheless have a thought. If somehow our 3-D perspective is a holographic projection of a 2-D reality, then could'nt the 2-D "reality" really be a "projection" of a 1-D reality, and the 1-D "reality" simply a projection of a 0-D reality, or a "point." Does this mean that the "big bang" is not really anything more than a perception of the same one point from a false perspective? Are we simply perceiving that one point as "expanding" when in reality the qualities of that one point are such that we "experience" space-time that does not really "exist?" Are we simply self-interpreting that one point? Of course, this does little to answer anything, really, because we still know that the characteristics of that one point for some reason have some degree of consistency, which for some reason (chance or some principle) "must be." It seems, therefore, useful to analyze the characteristics of that one point, if nothing else but in order to predict or guess as to what the qualities of that one point are, because we believe that this knowledge allows us to somehow create modifications to the character of that one point. And, maybe we can. Maybe that one point is not static. not sure but some of the people in string theory believe there may be up to 24 dimensions....ouch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwery_hi Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 That was interesting. Thanks for the link, Mike. A few months ago, having realized that I know everything about bridge (hahaha) I decided to try broaden my horizons and by learning more about physics - a subject that had always interested me (as well as a subject that I did not pay enough attention to in college because I was busy playing bridge at the time!). So instead of spending most of my spare time reading about bridge, I started reading about physics instead. I read quite a few books, but books on physics tend to be written by serious scientists and many of these people are not very good at communicating to a layman like me. Knowing from personal experience how hard it is for a bridge expert to explain things to a beginner, I have sympathy for these scientists :) But for those of you who are interested in this stuff, I found one author who is really good. His name is Brian Greene. He is a string theorist and his first book, "The Elegant Universe", is mostly about string theory. His second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is more of a general overview of physics that covers many topics (including the possibility of a holographic universe). Greene also has a sense of humor. FWIW his books get a strong recommendation from me. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Fabric of the Cosmos is the best "introduction to modern physics" book I have read. I also recommend "QED" and "The Character of Physical Law "by Feynman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Fabric of the Cosmos is the best "introduction to modern physics" book I have read. I also recommend "QED" and "The Character of Physical Law "by Feynman.Thanks for the suggestion. I just ordered QED on Amazon. Look forward to reading it - I bet Feynman has a sense of humor too :) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I read "not even wrong" but was quite disappointed by it. Hawkin's books are very well-written but contain to little substance, IMHO. I will check out "the fabric of the cosmos". Thanks for the recommendation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I also just finished reading Fabric of the Cosmos, and recommend it highly; there's a small section that discusses the holographic theory. I never read his Elegant Universe, but I think it was turned into a series of PBS shows (maybe they were "Nova" episodes) that I watched. Greene also seems to be a good speaker, he was even on Letterman once. However, if you're not into heavy mathematics, avoid anything by Roger Penrose. I started reading The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe a few months ago, but put it down when I was about a third of the way through and he was still teaching all the advanced math that would be necessary to understand the later physics. He may be one of the most brilliant minds in modern physics, but his books are strictly for people in the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Will the last person to spontaneously cease to exist please turn out the lights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I read "not even wrong" but was quite disappointed by it. Hawkin's books are very well-written but contain to little substance, IMHO. I will check out "the fabric of the cosmos". Thanks for the recommendation! it's amusing to me that the author of this book and Brian Green are (were?) faculty at the same university. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I didn't underzstand the grained thing, did it mean that space is quantified as energy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 not sure but some of the people in string theory believe there may be up to 24 dimensions....ouch 26 really. Lennard: In what universe? Sheldon: In all of them, that is the point. :) Watch "Big Bang Theory"! Scene from Big Bang Theory pilot episode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Fred did you read "A Brief History Of Time" ? Probably an obvious recommendation, but it is still a great book and I think (???) it is not yet outdated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1972 (read my Dad's issues for ten years or so before that) and it is an excellent entry point into just about every branch of science. Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwery_hi Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 One really cool thing I liked learning about was the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I think "In search of Schrodingers Cat" has a nice description. I'd like to read a book about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. Anyone read a good book that touches on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1972 (read my Dad's issues for ten years or so before that) and it is an excellent entry point into just about every branch of science. Online you can browse past issues and even read entire articles. They do cosmology particularly well (or maybe I just like the topic). yes they had an interestisng article on the end of cosmology, that eventually the night sky will be devoid of anything thing but by then we will be long gone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.