PDA

View Full Version : Holographic Universe



zhao
16-04-2008, 10:54 AM
saw this on another board and thought i'd share with dissensians -- kind of an extension of this thread (http://dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=2653&highlight=holographic). I'm sure this is old news to some of you. i still find it fascinating.




The Amazing Holographic Universe

By Michael Talbot

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.

Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.

As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.

When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.

According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.

Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order.

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from bluü whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".

Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.

Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

zhao
16-04-2008, 11:02 AM
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through ome gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly.

Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with evey other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.

Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support.

It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected.

Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.

Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.


Creation - Holographic Universe - 2

In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head.

What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal.

The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.

Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.

In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.

Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.

As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.

zhao
16-04-2008, 11:08 AM
The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality".

Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.

Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection.

Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.

If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.

Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.

Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

swears
16-04-2008, 11:23 AM
http://w1tp.com/enigma/u_170s7k.jpg

swears
16-04-2008, 11:26 AM
http://jayfan.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/crank.jpg

http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/2/1/165/1165274_Soulja_BoyCrank_That.jpg

http://www.xxlmag.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/crank.jpg

zhao
16-04-2008, 11:49 AM
so a load of shifty bollox is what you are saying swears?

EDIT: you are entitled to your opinions, but next time you start a thread i will be sure to respond in similar fashion with half a page of annoying pictures.

thanks for taking Dissensus a step further toward Yahoo chats dude.

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 12:20 PM
Looks like an interesting thread, I'll have a proper look at it when I get the time.

zhao
16-04-2008, 12:28 PM
Looks like an interesting thread, I'll have a proper look at it when I get the time.

will be good to get a physicists' take on this...

noel emits
16-04-2008, 01:03 PM
If this theory is correct does that mean there's a way to retrieve Mr. Tea's edited post? ;)

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 01:18 PM
If this theory is correct does that mean there's a way to retrieve Mr. Tea's edited post? ;)

Buh? What did it say before? Or are you being too subtle for me at this hour in the morning?

noel emits
16-04-2008, 01:21 PM
LOL - my mistake, I misread it I was laughing so much at swears' pictures. Very childish though swears.

Damn, I'm going to have to read that whole thing now to make up for my failed attempt at humour.

swears
16-04-2008, 01:28 PM
so a load of shifty bollox is what you are saying swears?

EDIT: you are entitled to your opinions, but next time you start a thread i will be sure to respond in similar fashion with half a page of annoying pictures.

thanks for taking Dissensus a step further toward Yahoo chats dude.

OK, serious post now. I'm obvs not a scientician, but this stuff just doesn't add up.

Even if the universe is "gigantic hologram" how does that make it any less real? Real compared to what? I thought it was a pretty mainstream view in physics that everything is made of matter or waves or strings at a fundamental level. You don't get sub-atomic rocks or bits of wood do you? Just because things we observe don't hold up to Einstein's theories 100%, doesn't mean the universe as we know it isn't "real". Didnt Niels Bohr have problems with his work in the 1920s regarding subatomic particles and the speed of light?

The Bohm stuff sounds interesting, but how do you make the leap from that to all this batshit stuff about the universe only existing in our minds, and the woman on acid who was a lizard in a previous life and bullshit about bending spoons? It doesn't follow at all.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.

This is just hippy wishful thinking.

swears
16-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Obviously Mr Tea or anyone else studying physics can actually go into more detail than me, but even to the layman this is all very dubious to say the least.

dHarry
16-04-2008, 02:11 PM
yes Swears, but if you'd just open your mind a little you'd see the infinite possibilities of universes we can't even imagine yet, man.

but one quick wikipedia later (no sciento) - Aspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect) in 82

performed the crucial "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance. A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured.

If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction for polarisation measurement of one photon particle, forcing the wave function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement of its twin even if this is on a distant star. This influence occurs despite the experimenters concerned not knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues.

Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism. See local hidden variable theory.
Fascinating, but not quite inconclusive proof that the universe is an holographic invention of our minds, is it?

Lyall Watson is the proponent of the largely discredited 100th monkey effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey) (hoax?), so his observance of disappearing trees can be taken with a grain or two of salt also.

Bohm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm)'s contribution to the holonomic (not holographic) mind/brain model is more interesting, esp. coming from a distinguished physicist (who ironically almost worked on the atomic bomb with Oppenheimer!), but still not the acid fried stuff of the article Zhao quotes.

@Mr. Tea - can you help us mortals appreciate the significance of Aspect's Bell test experiments - do you know if they are still well regarded, and do they have human-scale rather then just quantum-level relevance?

zhao
16-04-2008, 02:12 PM
If this theory is correct does that mean there's a way to retrieve Mr. Tea's edited post? ;)

if this theory is correct it would mean there is a way to retrieve every poster's every edited post on this and every other website that ever existed in any galaxy in the known and unknown universe :D

far as the woman / lizard thing is concerned... fully aware of how such a statement will surely elicit easy shots and potentially cause (further) damage to my credibility: i have personally experienced similar things while under the influence of LSD. it was around 1991, i was in my teenage years, not having read Mckenna or Leary or Lily or any of that stuff, i thought i was the only one. and i had formulated theories about collective, genetic memory based on these experiences. (actually i've mentioned this before here).

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 02:18 PM
OK, I've read about half the first part and there are some things worth mentioning.

Firstly, the quantum entanglement phenomenon - I think it's erroneous to say that two particles separated by a distance (a pair of entangled photons, in the Aspect experiment) 'communicate' with each other in any normal sense of the word. An influence can propagate between the particles - this is used as the basis for quantum encryption - but I think it's been quite rigorously proven that information, as such, cannot be sent by this method. Certainly, no-one's ever succeeded in doing so. Thus if we use a more sophisticated wording of the special-relativistic principle that nothing can go faster than light, namely that we forbid any kind of signal (in other words, information of some kind) to travel faster than light, then this principle is still respected even by particles in entangled quantum states.

Secondly, David Bohm. He was undoubtedly an extremely clever guy, and he probably came closer than any other single person to formulating a serious alternative to 'orthodox' quantum mechanics - but even so, he didn't really come that close. He tried to formulate a theory that was truly non-local, in the most literal sense, by allowing instantaneous transmission of information (which seems to be what the author of the above piece is saying) and that was also, at the most fundamental level of reality, deterministic (like the older classical mechanics of Newton, Maxwell and so on, but unlike quantum mechanics). However, this requires the ad-hoc invention of so-called 'hidden variables', which are just as unobservable as the wave function in standard QM but (as far as I know) not really amenable to mathematical analysis, and therefore of dubious scientific value, to say the least. In fact the Aspect experiment mentioned above, while proving the non-locality of quantum mechanics, rules out one major type of hidden variable theory; however, theories involving non-local hidden variables could hypothetically be consistent with the results. All the same, most physicists feel these theories to be contrived and lacking in 'natural-ness'.

Finally, if the universe were indeed some kind of 'projection', wouldn't it require some sort of (presumably real, 'nuts-and-bolts') 'projector'?

Edit: the stuff here about holographic models of consciousness and memory is much more interesting and worthy of serious discussion, I think. Although it's rather quaint that he says "how can a single human brain contain TEN BILLION BITS of information?!?!?" - well an iPod Nano manages fine, and it's a lot smaller than a human brain, right? :D

noel emits
16-04-2008, 02:40 PM
Firstly, the quantum entanglement phenomenon - I think it's erroneous to say that two particles separated by a distance (a pair entangled photons, in the Aspect experiment) 'communicate' with each other in any normal sense of the word. An influence can propagate between the particles - this is used as the basis for quantum encryption - but I think it's been quite rigorously proven that information, as such, cannot be sent by this method. Certainly, no-one's ever succeeded in doing so. Thus is we use a more sophisticated wording of the special-relativistic principle that nothing can go faster than light, namely that we forbid any kind of signal (in other words, information of some kind) to travel faster than light, then this principle is still respected even by particles in entangled quantum states.
Michio Kaku in a recent New Scientist - "...If you later disturb one particle, then the information you impart is transmitted instantaneously to it's partner - so the entangled partner forms a ready-and-waiting template for whatever information is to be teleported."
So it's not unconditional but information is 'communicated'.

Finally, if the universe were indeed some kind of 'projection', wouldn't it require some sort of (presumably real, 'nuts-and-bolts') 'projector'?
'Projection' is obviously a rather inadequate term and I don't think it's really meant in such a literal sense. But I think the answer to this would be that not knowing about a 'projector' would have no more bearing on the validity or applicability of a theory than not being able to explain the meaning of life affects the usefulness of other scientific theories.

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Michio Kaku in a recent New Scientist - "...If you later disturb one particle, then the information you impart is transmitted instantaneously to it's partner - so the entangled partner forms a ready-and-waiting template for whatever information is to be teleported."
So it's not unconditional but information is 'communicated'.


Hmm, the way I understand it, no useful information may be transmitted - information may be sent, but any attempt to receive it 'undoes' it and renders it meaningless, or something like that. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theorem

So for any reasonable definition of 'information', it cannot be transmitted at super-luminal speeds. Maybe Kaku disagrees. I don't think his is the majority view on this subject.

noel emits
16-04-2008, 03:14 PM
Well obviously it's a fairly lightweight entertaining article so I would assume he's just giving the current consensus view.

Interestingly though - if we are talking about an interconnected, holographic universe then the very point is that there is in fact no transmission of information anyway - it just looks that way.

Edit:

OK, Kaku is talking about this sort of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

But yeah, the basis for the no-communication theorem wouldn't seem to be incompatible with the holographic universe hypothesis, it might even help back it up as far as I can see. If we are talking about a participatory observer created reality where everything is connected then of course interfering with or observing the state of one entangled partner in a pair is going to affect the other one, right?

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 03:38 PM
Edit:

OK, Kaku is talking about this sort of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

But yeah, the basis for the no-communication theorem wouldn't seem to be incompatible with the holographic universe hypothesis, it might even help back it up as far as I can see. If we are talking about a participatory observer created reality where everything is connected then of course interfering with or observing the state of one entangled partner in a pair is going to affect the other one, right?

Ahh, right. Yeah, teleportation is a bit different. As far as I know, there is no hypothetical process that can transmit actual, usable information superluminally currently accepted by the mainstream of the theoretical physics community.

With talk of "participatory observer-created reality", I think a most scientists these days would inwardly cringe and start muttering darkly about the Copenhagen Interpretation and the anthropic principle...

noel emits
16-04-2008, 04:04 PM
With talk of "participatory observer-created reality", I think a most scientists these days would inwardly cringe and start muttering darkly about the Copenhagen Interpretation and the anthropic principle...
Well that's OK because you can forget about those terms for the purposes of thinking about that article. The important part is the connectivity. What I'm getting at is you touch this thing here and affect that thing there because they are in fact the same thing.

Ahh, right. Yeah, teleportation is a bit different. As far as I know, there is no hypothetical process that can transmit actual, usable information superluminally currently accepted by the mainstream of the theoretical physics community.
I'll have to read a bit more to get an idea of what the current thinking is exactly but again this is almost the point - there need be no 'transmission' of 'information' because everything is interconnected.

Anyway, I should be responding to zhao's post directly rather than just picking up on your comments.

Mr. Tea
16-04-2008, 04:12 PM
Things already are 'connected' in physics, as long as you're talking about events that have already happened in your past 'light cone':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

...or events that haven't yet happened in your future light cone.

Events are unconnected to you only if they're happening sufficiently far away that light couldn't reach you from there, or light from you couldn't reach these distant events. (An 'event', in physics, is a four-dimensional coordinate: a time and a place.)

But within light cones, everything that *can* affect something else, *will* affect it.

noel emits
16-04-2008, 05:04 PM
Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

OK.

http://www.furious.com/perfect/graphics/djspooky.jpghttp://bleepfiend.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/distance.jpg

Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

OK.

http://zero.co.nz/music/images/w/Wonder,%20Stevie%20-%20Innervisions.jpg

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.

Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

OK!

http://www.connollyco.com/discography/roger_waters/hitchhiking.jpg

noel emits
16-04-2008, 05:17 PM
In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

But of course.

http://images.mp3real.ru/albums/2_unlimited/art_2_unlimited.jpg

droid
16-04-2008, 07:11 PM
There was a tolerable British sci-fi novel released last year that explored the themes of quantum physics and interconnected alternate realities.


Brasyl Posits Alternate Histories

Multiple-award-winning SF author Ian McDonald, whose novel Brasyl is a finalist for this year's British Science Fiction Association Award, told SCI FI Wire that he wanted to do another book set in a non-Western country as a filter for Western SF notions. His previous novel, River of Gods, was set in India.

"I didn't want anything as obvious as China or Indonesia--they're overserved anyway," McDonald said in an interview. "I was looking for somewhere off the U.S./U.K. radar, and an inner voice one morning in the shower whispered the word 'Brazil,' which is a very beautiful word, laden with exoticism and possibility. I knew next to nothing about Brazil, which is itself a stimulating challenge."

In the novel, McDonald tells three stories set in three histories of Brazil. "The reality-shifting, many-worlds approach seemed to rather suit a country that has always prided itself as 'the nation of the future,'" McDonald said. "It's just that that future seems to be constantly changing, constantly elusive."

McDonald added that it's not clear that the three histories deal with the same nation. "Are they necessarily all the same Brazil?" he said. "For even though one is set in 2032, another in 2006 (or so it seems) and one in 1732, they are all tied together by the wilder implications of quantum theory and quantum computing. Ultimately, it's about what it means to be quantum. And there's the Brazilian dance/martial art of capoeira, what [Americans] call soccer, floating basilicas on the Amazon and sword-fighting Jesuits. And knives that cut down to the quantum level."

Brasyl also explores the wilder shores of quantum theory, McDonald said. "It's one of the most accurate scientific theories we have produced: Its power of prediction is awesome. But for it to be true means everything we assume about physical reality is untrue," he said.

There are three main interpretations of quantum theory, McDonald said. "[There's] the Copenhagen, the Everett Many Worlds and the Bohm Carrier-Wave theory, [and] all of them have profoundly disturbing implications for our place in the universe," he said. "I took the Many Worlds theory, but my writing twist was to take it not as an alternate history, which is how different this alternate world is from ours, but how similar."

I reckon youd like it Zhao.

john eden
16-04-2008, 08:20 PM
Psychic Tv used Hugo Zucarelli's Holophonic sound on their Dreams Less Sweet LP circa 1983.

noel emits
16-04-2008, 08:26 PM
I think it (or something very similar) was also used by Klaus Schulze on Sand's 'Golem' album.

I did an image search to get the tastefully censored version of the Roger Waters album sleeve. Interesting what you get if you do a google image search for 'dreams less sweet'.

Jaie Miller
17-04-2008, 10:32 AM
Science is just one of God's dreadlocks.

Mr. Tea
17-04-2008, 12:40 PM
Science is just one of God's dreadlocks.

Indeed. Let's not forget maths, English, French, history and PE.

tryptych
17-04-2008, 06:11 PM
.

With talk of "participatory observer-created reality", I think a most scientists these days would inwardly cringe and start muttering darkly about the Copenhagen Interpretation and the anthropic principle...

What do you mean by this? That most scientists don't adhere to the Copenhagen Interpretation? Or that it doesn't require an Observer?


IIRC the way the Copenhagen interpretation gets round the EPR paradox (entanglement) is to say that each observer subjectively collapses the wave function (as wave functions are not "real").

The point about Bohm's interpretation is that it just as consistent as the Copenhagen, or Many-Worlds interpretations. The interesting thing here is that you can see lots of un-scientific reasons why one theory gets chosen over the other - i.e. the feeling that such theories lack "natural-ness" or seem to go against commonsense. I've got a lot of time for Bohm, been reading 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' recently and enjoying it a lot.

Of course, there is another way - do away with time altogether:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726391.500-is-time-an-illusion.html

I can post this up if anyone's interested, but it is quite long and a bit off topic. It's amusing to see scientists suggesting similar conclusions to those presented over 50 years ago by Husserl & Heidegger.

Mr. Tea
17-04-2008, 07:04 PM
I don't think it's unscientific to reject theories on the basis that they seem 'unnatural'. The word here is used in a somewhat specialised sense to describe theories that require a lot of ad-hoc assumptions rather than following 'naturally' from fundamental axioms and postulates. A major reason theories in modern physics and cosmology get rejected is because they require a lot of 'fine-tuning'; that is, they require certain physical parameters to have very specific values rather than predicting those values from ab initio calculations.

This is all related to the anthropic principle, which can be stated as "the universe must be the way it is because otherwise we would not be here to observe it". Most scientists these days find this position unsatisfactory, and would much rather have a theory that says "the universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way". To give an example from cosmology, a major problem with the early form of the big bang theory was that it appeared to require the overall density of the universe to be exactly equal to the critical density (the density that's neither too great to cause an eventual 'big crunch' nor too small to lead to an infinitely expanding universe) in order for the universe to have got this far at all: a density fractionally bigger would have caused a big crunch almost immediately after the big bang, while a fractionally smaller density would have caused the universe to expand much too rapidly for stars and galaxies to form (the so-called 'big freeze').* Then in the '70s a new idea called inflation solved this problem, by postulating an early period of exponential expansion that would have rapidly caused any density greater or smaller than the critical value to rapidly converge to this value.

I mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation because it seemed to reverse a trend that had been going on in science since the Renaissance, namely that our place in the universe had come to be seen as less and less special or privileged. Specifically, it seemed to require the existence of conscious observers to somehow 'project reality' upon a universe consisting natively of an inchoate miasma of probability waves. Naturally, a lot of physicists were very wary of this idea, and it's not generally taken seriously these days; the problem of wave-function collapse is an ongoing area of research, but most experts in the field take alternative views, based mostly on either an idea called decoherence or some version of the 'many worlds' hypothesis (although, as I understand them, they're more or less equivalent).


*if you want to read up on this it's generally known as the 'flatness problem'.

Edit:



The point about Bohm's interpretation is that it just as consistent as the Copenhagen, or Many-Worlds interpretations. The interesting thing here is that you can see lots of un-scientific reasons why one theory gets chosen over the other - i.e. the feeling that such theories lack "natural-ness" or seem to go against commonsense. I've got a lot of time for Bohm, been reading 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' recently and enjoying it a lot.


It may be 'consistent' but as I remarked above it relies on some ad-hoc assumptions - furthermore, no-one has yet been able to use it reproduce quantum field theory, which has been tested experimentally to impressive accuracy. A counter-criticism could be made that Bohm's ideas are not so much an alternative to quantum mechanics per se, but merely a (radically) different interpretation...suffice to say, there are good reasons why most modern researchers in this field work with more 'standard' ideas about quantum mechanics, rather than Bohm's non-local hidden variables.
Also, I've been meaning to read H&TIO for yonks now, it was recommended to me by one of my A-level teachers - hopefully this thread will spur me to get off my arse and find a copy.

tryptych
18-04-2008, 12:17 AM
I don't think it's unscientific to reject theories on the basis that they seem 'unnatural'. The word here is used in a somewhat specialised sense to describe theories that require a lot of ad-hoc assumptions rather than following 'naturally' from fundamental axioms and postulates. A major reason theories in modern physics and cosmology get rejected is because they require a lot of 'fine-tuning'; that is, they require certain physical parameters to have very specific values rather than predicting those values from ab initio calculations.

This is all related to the anthropic principle, which can be stated as "the universe must be the way it is because otherwise we would not be here to observe it". Most scientists these days find this position unsatisfactory, and would much rather have a theory that says "the universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way". To give an example from cosmology, a major problem with the early form of the big bang theory was that it appeared to require the overall density of the universe to be exactly equal to the critical density (the density that's neither too great to cause an eventual 'big crunch' nor too small to lead to an infinitely expanding universe) in order for the universe to have got this far at all: a density fractionally bigger would have caused a big crunch almost immediately after the big bang, while a fractionally smaller density would have caused the universe to expand much too rapidly for stars and galaxies to form (the so-called 'big freeze').* Then in the '70s a new idea called inflation solved this problem, by postulating an early period of exponential expansion that would have rapidly caused any density greater or smaller than the critical value to rapidly converge to this value.

I mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation because it seemed to reverse a trend that had been going on in science since the Renaissance, namely that our place in the universe had come to be seen as less and less special or privileged. Specifically, it seemed to require the existence of conscious observers to somehow 'project reality' upon a universe consisting natively of a formless miasma of probability waves. Naturally, a lot of physicists were very wary of this idea, and it's not generally taken seriously these days; the problem of wave-function collapse is an ongoing area of research, but most experts in the field take alternative views, based mostly on either an idea called decoherence or some version of the 'many worlds' hypothesis (although, as I understand them, they're more or less equivalent).


*if you want to read up on this it's generally known as the 'flatness problem'.

Edit:



It may be 'consistent' but as I remarked above it relies on some ad-hoc assumptions - furthermore, no-one has yet been able to use it reproduce quantum field theory, which has been tested experimentally to impressive accuracy. A counter-criticism could be made that Bohm's ideas are not so much an alternative to quantum mechanics per se, but merely a (radically) different interpretation...suffice to say, there are good reasons why most modern researchers in this field work with more 'standard' ideas about quantum mechanics, rather than Bohm's non-local hidden variables.
Also, I've been meaning to read H&TIO for yonks now, it was recommended to me by one of my A-level teachers - hopefully this thread will spur me to get off my arse and find a copy.

When I say "unscientific" I mean not in a solid, Popperian sense. Working with "standard" ideas, rather than venturing off into radical territory is all well and good, but this is contrary to how I would suggest most working scientists view their discipline - as purely objective slow steps towards ever greater truth. When sociologist of scientific knowledge point our this kind of thing, there tends to be a lot of denial from scientists.

One has to wonder if the reason that Bohm's interpretation has not been able to reproduce quantum field theory is to do with lack of funding, perceived "wrongness" etc.

If you ask me, from a lay point of view, I'd say that physics is close to reaching the stages Kuhn talks about just before a paradigm shift. But I believe we've had this argument about Popper vs Kuhn before so I don't want to re tread old ground.

Could you give a brief description of the decoherence alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation? I was about to say I had a fairly good idea of the many worlds, but after a bit of reading, I realise I don't!

Fascinating - it's amazing the fairly extreme realism and subject-object dualism that is axiomatic to the many worlds interpretation.

Also ironic that many-worlds, in its status as more than in interpretation, but a theory, makes strong metaphysical claims, in the same way in which mysticism is so criticised for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Mr. Tea
18-04-2008, 01:31 AM
One has to wonder if the reason that Bohm's interpretation has not been able to reproduce quantum field theory is to do with lack of funding, perceived "wrongness" etc.


Or it could just be wrong! Hidden-variables theories certainly have their supporters, and a very noteworthy feature of the field of theoretical physics (and mathematics more generally) is that people working alone on pet theories can (occasionally) make huge insights and achieve amazing advances and breakthroughs: obviously the same cannot be said for large experimental efforts that require lots of manpower and money.

My feeling on this is that Bohm's ideas have not gained a huge amount of mainstream acceptance because of a) the assumptions they require, b) the lack of predictive power, and c) the fact that the predictions they do make seem to be consistent with 'vanilla' quantum mechanics (which manages to make them without needing so many ad-hoc assumptions).



Could you give a brief description of the decoherence alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation? I was about to say I had a fairly good idea of the many worlds, but after a bit of reading, I realise I don't!


I'd be delighted to in the morning. Right now my bed is looking like a more tempting proposition.

polystyle desu
27-04-2008, 10:11 PM
How about ... http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok
?

Mr. Tea
27-04-2008, 10:53 PM
How about ... http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok
?

I'm pretty sceptical of this kind of cyclical 'brane cosmology'. For one thing, it was apparently thought up because some people found standard Big Bang theory (and a important phase of exponential expansion that happened immediately after, called 'inflation') "contrived" or requiring too many "ad hoc" assumptions. Whereas this new model requires two 'branes' (effectively largely-separate universes) embedded in a higher-dimensional space, interacting with each other only by gravity, and occasionally smashing into each other, releasing energy in a massive explosion that causes an effective big bang. Hmm, not too contrived, then? :slanted:

It's pretty cool that South Africa now has an institute of advanced mathematics, though!

polystyle desu
03-06-2008, 02:08 PM
The Dark Energy Symposium and you ...
Link within
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html?ref=science

Agent Nucleus
13-06-2008, 11:27 PM
the Talbot book has an important place in my heart, but I tend to prefer the Holographic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle) to the Holographic Paradigm.