Our universe is a hologram Bashny.Net

Fifty six million nine hundred sixty one thousand seven hundred forty seven



Everything we see, hear, and feel — may be real, may be
only a holographic projection of some two-dimensional records
Image: Geralt

There is a theory that our universe is just a hologram and nothing is real in it. The average person this information is hard to wrap the head. Actually its just misinterpreted. The author SLY2M in detail to understand the theory of the holographic Universe, and came to the conclusion that the universe could theoretically be a hologram! Only a hologram is not real…

Perhaps you vaguely heard such statements, that, they say, "our world is a hologram". The claim itself is quite powerful, but people often incorrectly interpret it. They think that behind this phrase is the idea — everything is an illusion, nothing is real, all our actions and aspirations are naught but mud and a disembodied holographic smoke. Or even so — there are some digital holographic scenery, and we live in the Matrix.

This article is devoted to explanation of the assumptions as long as this theory but a scientific paradigm — whether our universe is a hologram, and if so, why. What makes scientists to make such seemingly stupid and obviously absurd statements.

Twenty six million one hundred twenty three thousand five hundred seventy eight



I have to admit, the topic has interested me for a very unexpected reason. As a positivist, a materialist, almost atheist, I always thought that science — true science, a company engaged in real, actual cases. A physicist measures the actual electrical potential between the two real electrodes. Chemist mixes the contents of two existing flasks, and receives a tangible result in the form of specific chemical molecules. Biologist picks in real genes and gets a real live rabbit—monster, with horns, with scales and poisonous claws on the middle legs. People are busy, people are working.

Just imagine how it is more necessary and more useful than empty—empty of digging of all sorts of arts, culture and of course the worst of people — philosophers! Last even mere idlers, aberrations, the extra branch of the human race. One says the spirit is primary, matter is secondary. The other objects — no, matter is primary and spirit secondary. And here they are a day only by doing that arguing with each other, figuring out who is right and consume the products and increase the global entropy, knowing full well that the dispute is in principle insoluble, and therefore can argue endlessly.

So I thought before, and by the way, in some measure continue to think, but in the course of deliberation, there were some nuances that cause a measure of respect for philosophers and their works. These thoughts are based on the attempts of unification of the two principles, duck and holographic.

A sign of a duck (the duck test) is: "If something looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." Pretty well known in wider circles and fairly self-evident, requiring no proof.

If we have an object that has all (absolutely all, 100%) characteristics of a duck, the object must be a duck.

For example, when faced with a black box, from which you can hear duck krainie (one of the characteristics of a duck), we can assume that in the box is a duck.
But if we open the box and see there is a tape recording of a duck quacking, we will understand that we were cruelly deceived. As we understand this? Yes because no other duck tape characteristics — it doesn't look like a duck (tape) and not floats like a duck (and sinks).

You can go ahead. You can take a toy rubber duck, put it in her VCR and put in a black box. The krainie be authentic duck, and when we open the box, you'll see what "it" looks like a duck, and even swims, for rubber. But it's still not a duck, because the object "toy rubber duck" duck no other features — it's not alive, does not carry eggs, and generally made of rubber.

If we continue to "improve" performance, i.e. to bring them in line with the characteristics of a duck, in the end, with 100% coincidence of ALL parameters, we still come to the real duck. We can't come to anything else, we will vynuzhdennaya and count duck the subject, which came about this and says the duck principle. Well, not about this, but this is the philosophical Foundation underlying this humorous phrase.

Here, of course, one can cite the miles of philosophical discussion is the object what it is, what it is actually, but the debate by default, infinite and at some point begins to walk in a circle, I propose to interrupt him and go to the second part, to the holographic principle.

The holographic principle of the Universe was born from the discussion of thermodynamics of black holes (the crux of the matter disclosed in the article "How many universes can fit on the 16 GB USB flash drive on your toes™" or much more fully in the book of L. Susskind "the Battle of the black hole. My battle with Stephen Hawking the world safe for quantum mechanics"), although the preconditions existed before, stretching to the grandfather to Einstein, which enraged spooky action at a distance of entangled photons (see article "the Character of physical laws on the fingers™") or even further to an even more ancient grandfather Plato with his cave.

The idea is that all the information contained in the black hole, (and it there should be many, because all the objects falling into a black hole carrying a wild amount of information, only the fact of its existence, and it is bound somewhere to be stored and to be stored) is duplicated at the event horizon. Of course, all the information is stored there in a completely unreadable form, is far from original, but it's there. This statement is based on the fundamental principle of physics — the law of conservation of information.

Interestingly, you will not find such a law in the list of conservation laws. All conservation laws known by the early 20th century was built on the symmetry properties of our world, mathematically formulated helluva lot of brains, but undeservedly little-known aunt Emmy Netter. The law of conservation of information is not there, it's the law it would be better called the "law of indestructibility of information", which implies that all the processes that the thermodynamic quantum theoretically reversible in time.

If you take a DVD disk with the movie the Matrix, will scratch his nail, and then thrown on the floor and trample in small pieces, it seems that the information from the disk disappeared. But it's not! Yes, to read from the disk is almost impossible, but the information—that will not go away. It remains in the configuration of molecules of fragments of the disc, and the fact that we can't do these pieces to shove in the DVD player, our personal problem, from the point of view of the Universe is nothing not disappeared, only mixed in a complete mess, but in theory (in theory!) you can sit at the two demons Laplace (or 500 Chinese) and collect the disc from the shards back. Let it will take a thousand years, but based on the laws of physics is quite a reversible process and if the process is reversible, so the information is not lost, she left, and it can be restored.

It is easy to understand the example, an example will be, you know some analogy on your toes™.

Imagine that we put a high speed camera high-definition and make a movie as DVD disc falls to the floor. Drive fell and broke. Its pieces flying in all directions, a complete mess, nothing is clear. The pieces don't even have to say that it was the object originally — around one small bounce. But the camera got it all! You can play it in slo-mo (although it is correct to say accelerated) shooting and clearly see where's what is rattling. Even more. You can always play it backwards and see which piece came from. And in the end, even would like to recreate a disk from a broken, if not in reality, but at least on the record.

In this the nature of any speed cameras of course not, but she did not need. Every little grain of sand itself camera. She always knows where it came from and where he's going. If you conduct a poll and question every little piece where it came from, in their words and sincere confessions, you can restore the overall picture of the past.

It is in this sense I'm talking about the law of conservation of information. If any particle we can trace its path at the time, if this process of displacement in time is reversible at least in principle, it means that information is indestructible.

This is all well and true only in the familiar world of familiar grains of sand and particles. With quantum processes is somewhat more complicated in quantum mechanics, too, formally only allowed unitary transformations (i.e. those that can be paid backward in time and return to the original configuration), but then can not remember such a thing as a "measurement process", which is completely random shapewear the superposition of the wave functions and for which scientists still have not agreed what to count and how to treat. In any case, our subject is not essential, in the case of a black hole the law of conservation of information is obliged to work, otherwise the whole of quantum mechanics would have to rewrite, which lazy scientists really would not like. Scientists, at least physicists, in General, have not recorded any irreversible law of nature. All the formulas, all the knowledge about the behavior of the surrounding world, which we know is reversible.

Here is the idea that all information that falls into a black hole, somehow duplicated (as it is a long conversation and not entirely clear, but it does not matter) the event horizon in the form of some of the squiggles are actually drawings right on the surface of the event horizon, that is, on the surface of a black hole. I'm exaggerating of course, no "drawings" there was in reality no, but the idea of this. Information about the fallen object is recorded in bits (not real bits, 1 and 0, as in the computer, but something very similar) placed in the cell of the Planck length, or rather in this case, the "Planck square" 10-35×10-35 m2, is placed directly on the surface of the event horizon. It turns out that all the information about the three — dimensional object the three-dimensional configuration of the molecules that constitute the subject, as well as all the characteristics of the object — its mass, temperature, softness, fluffiness, and so forth, we were able to record in the form of a two-dimensional picture some squiggles placed in the cells of Planck size.

Eleven million one hundred sixty two thousand two hundred seventeen



As it turns out (as you should have) here for whatever reasons. The analogy is with a camera and a DVD disc clear. But what will happen in the case of a black hole? Here we had a black hole, and we threw it in the sofa. Hole made the typical plop! (just kidding, of course) and increased its mass, and therefore increased in size. Then we threw it in the fridge. Again, plop! Then a TV. Plop! Read more — two tape recorders, two imported case, two jacket domestic. Suede. Hole every time makes plop! and increases in size. Scroll the tape back. From it, out of the black hole is supposed to fly all these items in reverse order. But where the hole would be to know how it can guess what to throw back? In physics there is this funny sounding concept — "the black hole has no hair". It means that one black hole, nothing, absolutely no different from another. They do not and can not be hairstyles. All the differences can only be in the mass, electric charge and angular momentum. Ie black hole, just nowhere to store information about a fallen sofa or refrigerator, so to get her back. Anywhere but on the two-dimensional surface of a black hole, the event horizon.

In the usual two-dimensional world, the picture is ALWAYS worse than the three-dimensional object. Worse in the sense that it contains less information. If you have a three-dimensional machine, it can be circumvented on all sides, to see that rear bumper scratched an obscene word, and the front rooms don't match the rear (it seems that the numbers killed and the car stolen). All of this information is missing, if we have only a two-dimensional picture machines, even super—detailed, even a 100 megapixel photo. Anyway the photo it is impossible to walk around, more information than a flat image of the photo not to pull out.

However, in our world there is such a thing as holography. Real holography, not a pseudo—holographic stickers that "wink". Holography is essentially a two-dimensional piece of transparent film, which in certain lights laser beam recreates before our eyes in the space of a three-dimensional object. Here, of course, is not so simple. And the film is not "truly two-dimensional", the whole thing just did that on film in a special way tricky incised pattern of three-dimensional furrows, which create an interference pattern when irradiated it with a laser of a specific wavelength. Yes, and a hologram — a three-dimensional image hanging in the air, it is still not the "true subject". It has no mass, density, other characteristics, it is only a bodiless image, it is not always clear. But the idea was very similar. The pseudo—two-dimensional tape we are recording MORE information than it could, and if we have a cunning reader (a special laser beam), we can follow this two-dimensional information to reconstruct a three-dimensional object, or at least his image. Which, as a regular three-dimensional object, you can walk around, look at it from different angles and find that the front and the back.

Nineteen million seven hundred eighty five thousand nine hundred fifty eight



So the idea of the holographic black hole, which keeps the information of three-dimensional objects on the true (but here is not "pseudo" and "true") two-dimensional event horizon. Moreover, in contrast to our imperfect holograms — ALL the information about the object, its weight and everything else.

Over time, from black holes, scientists began to gradually move to the description of familiar things. By analogy (some laws are the same), it can be argued that any information contained in a certain volume, for example in the black box in the room, in the Solar System in the Universe, can be written in the form of some curves located on the surface bounding this volume. On the walls of the black box, on the walls of the room on an imaginary sphere around our Solar System, on the border of our Universe.

And you do not need any special "magic border". The principle of a theoretical. Theoretically it is stated that, everything that happens in a certain volume, all the information that it contains, not only all the objects that are there, and all the laws of physics that work in this volume, all the processes that take place there, everything, EVERYTHING—EVERYTHING, that is, what was and what will be in some area of space equivalent to some records on the walls of this volume. Well, that in the case of static pictures, and in the case of the unfolding in time of the processes — dynamic two-dimensional recording.

This is the theory of the holographic Universe. Everything we see, hear, feel or otherwise observe all of these can be real objects, processes and events, and could be a holographic projection of some two-dimensional record of a distant "wall, bounding our world." Will pay special attention to quotation marks used. First, it's not real holography in human understanding, not one that is located on a transparent piece of film, but only a similar principle. And second, no "walls, enclosing our world" in reality, of course not. Wall something imaginary like the equator on the globe.

Ie, we, on Earth, in our world — swaying trees, falling rocks, live in the city, there is war and the dollar rose, and there on the far wall, it looks something like this:



And these processes are equivalent. That is, are described by the same laws and the same formulas. And it is impossible to understand what is correct and what is only a holographic representation. Both descriptions are correct. Both describe the same reality, though in different ways. Both are true.

But for a long time all this was only talk, analogies, and assumptions from the series - "what would happen if..."as long as a little-known Argentine mathematician Juan Maldacena 1997m not gave precise mathematical proof of this equivalence.

And immediately, on the spot, a few remarks about solutions Maldacena.

1. Strictly speaking, the work Maldacena is the proof of the "equivalence of five-dimensional (4+1) anti—de—Sitter space with the presence of gravity and four-dimensional projection of the (3+1), described by a conformal field theory without gravity." It sounds very technical and confusing (and it's only the title! inside is generally better not to meddle, if the head is kept), but the basic meaning is very similar to what we are discussing here. Five-dimensional manifold, it turned out to represent four-dimensional. Virtually our case, where we three-dimensional two-dimensional present. Gravity turns out like another dimension, but "minus". A regular dimension adds degrees of freedom and gravity on the contrary connects them. Well, of course, if you do not pay attention to the fact that Maldacena the space of anti—de sitter, and our universe just simply de sitter. Although scientists have disagreements. Some believe that anti—de sitter, and others that de sitter, and others that mix the two, and the fourth at all, tocarte—as the bow side.

Forty million nine hundred eighty nine thousand one hundred two



2. Their evidence Maldacena calculates, using the mathematics of String Theory. And String Theory, as many know, is not only full, but never proved. Ie has not been proved that these strings exist, and if they are actually there, then the whole theory (which, again, not even to the end of the finished and decorated) and it goes to the dump. Here earstroke, of course, argue that, say, there are strings or not is one thing, but we got the right math, it's all right and she can be relied upon. Well, Yes. Well, Yes. Only the sediment remains. Tell me, what for to it to go? Why do we need math 11—dimensional spaces, if together with the strings lost the extra measure and we will return to our familiar, native four-dimensional space—time.

3. Well, this time, as an elementary error in the calculations, also cannot be dropped. Calculate everything one "tearstone", check them out can God give a hundred people in the world, somewhere Maldacena lost somewhere plus minus mixed up, no one will notice, because very few people actually understand what I'm talking about. It's a joke, of course, but each share jokes…

In short "but" of varying severity are present. Although the idea, if you think about it, is completely crazy. Of course, the mere fact that some stoned eggheads something there yourself on paper has proven, does not make our world a hologram. The fact that our three-dimensional (four-dimensional, if we consider space—time) world, with all its variety of phenomena, events, objects and people can be completely described using a two dimensional film does not make this a two-dimensional film original our world. Because I could (and can and fingers™) to describe an object, but that doesn't make the words themselves a reality. For example, the mere fact that I am one hundred percent accuracy describe some bird, such as duck... Somewhere I've heard something like that!

The whole joke Maldacena evidence that he leads a full and absolute compliance (equivalence) of the description of a phenomenon, process, events occurring in three-dimensional or two-dimensional projection of this view. (Or rather five-dimensional and four-dimensional. Don't forget the idea is completely theoretical and "a stretch on our three-dimensional world" still exists).

However, if everything that occurs in our Universe, if our entire world can be 100% fully describe the processes taking place on some boundaries of the Universe, is not doing it according to the above "duck principle", it the real world?

Think about what I'm saying. So I drew on a sheet of paper (or computer screen) and say a duck is a duck.
 

Forty seven million eight hundred fifty three thousand one hundred thirty six



You: Well, see that duck, so what?
Me: No, you do not understand. It's not a drawing, not a picture of a duck. This is a real a real duck.
You: Good to drive, what, what, real duck? She's not alive, she's not moving!
I: Why. Here's a look. (makes it so that the duck started to move)
You: But she doesn't feel like a duck, and as a sheet of paper (monitor)!
Me: (takes the duck to the touch covered with feathers) — And now?
You: But she's not…
I: (does...) And now?

You know, what's your point? What if our world really a hologram?

источник:ivejournal.com

Source: /users/1080