bluey Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 one word~ KNIGHTMARE O___o walk left... more left! no no... MY left... ahh shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bren Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Yer, this could well be true, also this whole hologram shines out of my arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 What a load of bollocks! They're saying the Earth could be a hologram? then how come it's solid!? Maybe it's a hard light hologram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Pffft. I said this ages ago and no one believed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I can't make sense of this one bit. (by this i mean the theory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 one word~ KNIGHTMARE O___o walk left... more left! no no... MY left... ahh shit. Legendary reference! Knightmare was pure awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 We're hard light, they did it to Rimmer. They can do it to us. the universe hologram does not work that way as normal hologram but it hard to example. think of cube, are eyes can see that is 3D and soild image. The concept of light bouncing off things and creating the 3D illusion on a hologram is acceptable, but what about touch? I know the racks I've felt in my time [including the cracking rack last night] was certainly no flat image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Maybe it's a hard light hologram. We're hard light, they did it to Rimmer. They can do it to us. Keep up. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Right, well think I roughly understand this theory, seems somewhat bizarre and I'll ask some physics and maths people about it this evening to see what they think. Anyway, in my understanding: Black holes were originally said to have no entropy (basically, degree of disorder) because they resulted from perfect solutions of Einstein's equations from general relativity. However, it was later realised that as they suck in things with entropy yet have no entropy themselves, they must be decreasing the overall entropy of the universe. This contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental physical principle which states that the entropy of the universe must always increase. So this instead predicts that black holes have a huge amount of entropy (to cancel out the entropy of everything they suck in), and so it's been proposed that they are maximum entropy objects, having more entropy per volume than anything else in the universe. The proposed entropy of black holes has been calculated to be finite, and as temperature is closely related to entropy, they must also have finite temperature, meaning they have to balance out the temperature of what they absorb by radiating energy, to stop their temperature increasing indefinitely. This radiation is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, if we attempt to calculate it, it suggests that the entropy of black holes is related to their surface area, rather than their volume, which is counterintuitive because you'd expect the entropy to be a calculation from the possible arrangements of all the particles in the volume of the black hole, rather than just its surface. Furthermore, the interaction of ingoing and outgoing particles from the black holes contradicts standard quantum physics, as to be consistent the outgoing particles should be in a states of various different possibilities, yet there is nowhere for these states to come from. This paradox can only be resolved by using a modern and unusual interpretation of gravity, with one major catch - it suggests black holes are of lower dimensions than we usually interpret them. Both these conclusions are consistent with the idea that space is two, rather than three-dimensional (with spacetime presumably being three, rather than four-dimensional), and so the holographic principle has been developed to resolve this conclusion - that while space appears three-dimensional to us, it is simply a projection from a two-dimensional plane. Crazy, eh? But I don't see why people get worried about things like this - it's not like it changes the way we interpret the world in our day to day lives, though that doesn't stop it being interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowV7 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Interesting theory there. Makes sense anyway. I can't help but find stuff like this interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Keep up. . You said maybe. I confirmed it. God forbid two people make the same point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Right, well think I roughly understand this theory, seems somewhat bizarre and I'll ask some physics and maths people about it this evening to see what they think. Anyway, in my understanding: Black holes were originally said to have no entropy (basically, degree of disorder) because they resulted from perfect solutions of Einstein's equations from general relativity. However, it was later realised that as they suck in things with entropy yet have no entropy themselves, they must be decreasing the overall entropy of the universe. This contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental physical principle which states that the entropy of the universe must always increase. So this instead predicts that black holes have a huge amount of entropy (to cancel out the entropy of everything they suck in), and so it's been proposed that they are maximum entropy objects, having more entropy per volume than anything else in the universe. The proposed entropy of black holes has been calculated to be finite, and as temperature is closely related to entropy, they must also have finite temperature, meaning they have to balance out the temperature of what they absorb by radiating energy, to stop their temperature increasing indefinitely. This radiation is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, if we attempt to calculate it, it suggests that the entropy of black holes is related to their surface area, rather than their volume, which is counterintuitive because you'd expect the entropy to be a calculation from the possible arrangements of all the particles in the volume of the black hole, rather than just its surface. Furthermore, the interaction of ingoing and outgoing particles from the black holes contradicts standard quantum physics, as to be consistent the outgoing particles should be in a states of various different possibilities, yet there is nowhere for these states to come from. This paradox can only be resolved by using a modern and unusual interpretation of gravity, with one major catch - it suggests black holes are of lower dimensions than we usually interpret them. Both these conclusions are consistent with the idea that space is two, rather than three-dimensional (with spacetime presumably being three, rather than four-dimensional), and so the holographic principle has been developed to resolve this conclusion - that while space appears three-dimensional to us, it is simply a projection from a two-dimensional plane. Crazy, eh? But I don't see why people get worried about things like this - it's not like it changes the way we interpret the world in our day to day lives, though that doesn't stop it being interesting. This is why I love you, Grunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 with one major catch - it suggests black holes are of lower dimensions than we usually interpret them. What do you mean by this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This is genius. Makes me excited to think that we could be on the cusp of a paradigm shift in thought - it's along the lines of the earth being round, not flat, or the earth revolving around the sun, not vice-versa. As grunch said it won't change how we live but it could change the direction science and shizzle goes in. Love it! And remember - it's not just the universe that would be a 'hologram' but us too. Philosophically speaking, this is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 What I don't get is, if what we experience is 3D, then our universe is 3D. If we can feel and experience everything in 3D, then who's to say what is and isn't real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 What I don't get is, if what we experience is 3D, then our universe is 3D. If we can feel and experience everything in 3D, then who's to say what is and isn't real? Our senses could be lying to us. In the same way that if you touch your eyeball, you see the "spot" on the opposite side of your vision - ie. we see things back-to-front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Our senses could be lying to us. But that's still real to us. If everyone thinks the sky is green then the sky is green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 But that's still real to us. If everyone thinks the sky is green then the sky is green. Well yeah - to us, but not to physics. For all we know the "fact" that the world is actually 2D could be integral to the laws of physics/how the universe works. It's the same as how we can't see electrons, but the whole study of Chemistry is based on the behavior of electrons. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 What I don't get is, if what we experience is 3D, then our universe is 3D. If we can feel and experience everything in 3D, then who's to say what is and isn't real? Never seen a blue sky Yeah I can feel it reaching out And moving closer There's something about blue Asked myself what it's all for You know the funny thing about it I couldn't answer No I couldn't answer Things have turned a deeper shade of blue And images that might be real May be illusion Keep flashing off and on Free Wanna be free Gonna be free And move among the stars You know they really aren't so far Feels so free Gotta know free Please Don't wake me from the dream It's really everything it seemed I'm so free No black and white in the blue Everything is clearer now Life is just a dream you know That's never ending I'm ascending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The earth looks flat still, but because we know it isn't we have better navigational abilities. Sattelites in orbit. Better understanding of seasons, weather, which benefits crop growth etc etc. Knowing (ok, we nothing is certain and everything is theoretical for now) that not only do we perceive matter as this colourful, noisy, tasty environment but matter itself is, in a sense, being perceived by something else. That's all we are and that's all our senses are - tools to translate the environment we live in. There's no saying that it's what it really looks like, or really if what things look like is at all important in anyway (as appearances are, to a blind universe, merely side-effects). Animals experience external reality differently to us, so is a cigar really just a cigar? If you could smell better, would poo still smell of yesterday's dinner? Why does something smell good or bad? Is that to do with the external reality, or our own internal reality, to stop us from eating it. Stuff. Things. Need some gin and a sofa, boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 What do you mean by this? Basically, for the calculation to work, you have to take black holes to be three-dimensional rather than four-dimensional. What I don't get is, if what we experience is 3D, then our universe is 3D. If we can feel and experience everything in 3D, then who's to say what is and isn't real? Our senses could be lying to us. In the same way that if you touch your eyeball, you see the "spot" on the opposite side of your vision - ie. we see things back-to-front. But that's still real to us. If everyone thinks the sky is green then the sky is green. Well, your point works in some respects but not in others. Yes, our interpretation of the world is pretty much what it is to us, but that doesn't mean that more advanced scientific models won't contradict this interpretation - indeed, they do it all the time. For instance, while for most of human history people thought that there were no such things as microorganisms, current theories suggest (well, make it pretty obvious) that they exist. Science needn't be consistent with what we literally experience (though of course it must agree with observations, which often aren't what we actually experience), and indeed often isn't, as it trys to come up with explanations for things that we don't generally encounter or understand. Everyone thinks the sky is blue, but under current scientific models colour is merely the way our brain interprets a narrow band of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. That doesn't make colour any less real to us, but it does mean that it's just a construct of the way we view the world. Incidentally, the eye thing that Chairdriver mentioned is quite cool - it results from your retina interpreting the image before it's been flipped by the brain, and so is upside down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Well, your point works in some respects but not in others. Yes, our interpretation of the world is pretty much what it is to us, but that doesn't mean that more advanced scientific models won't contradict this interpretation - indeed, they do it all the time. For instance, while for most of human history people thought that there were no such things as microorganisms, current theories suggest (well, make it pretty obvious) that they exist. Science needn't be consistent with what we literally experience (though of course it must agree with observations, which often aren't what we actually experience), and indeed often isn't, as it trys to come up with explanations for things that we don't generally encounter or understand. Everyone thinks the sky is blue, but under current scientific models colour is merely the way our brain interprets a narrow band of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. That doesn't make colour any less real to us, but it does mean that it's just a construct of the way we view the world. What I meant was, if everything is 3D to us, then what good can come of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 There's no saying that it's what it really looks like, or really if what things look like is at all important in anyway (as appearances are, to a blind universe, merely side-effects). And of course there may be no such thing as what things "really" look like. What I meant was, if everything is 3D to us, then what good can come of this? Of this theory? Well, it advances physics, and we understand more about the universe, which aside from being interesting has a multitude of potential (if distant) applications. And maybe, if it becomes accepted, we may go on to understand how and why we interpret space as three-dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I had to use dictionary.com to find the meaning of entropy, and it still doesn't make sense to me, I understand up to a point [i think], then I lose it. Things have turned a deeper shade of blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Also it could mean that every "spec of data" in the universe contains all the data that exists in the universe, since part of an hologram contains the information of whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts