The universe may actually be a hologram!

Cited: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

Discuss?

 

Edit: On a serious note, I just cannot get over the fact as to why this absurd theory was proposed in the first place:

"At a black hole, Albert Einstein's theory of gravity apparently clashes with quantum physics, but that conflict could be solved if the Universe were a holographic projection."

A single phenomenon provides a conflict between two theories (the latter being very broad with quirks of its own) and hence, in order to resolve this conflict, we change our understanding of the entire nature of the universe? Come on, that's not evidence. That's wanting to get your name in the headlines.

 

Agreed.
A single dent in a theory, THE theory for that matter, doesn't make it completely untrue.
While I'm 100% sure Einstein's theory's will be adapted and changed in the coming years, never will the universe be commonly seen as a holographic version of itself, just because a single kind of matter doesn't follow the rules of the universe.

I'd like to see a complete scientific article on this topic, not some gibberish by some 'theoretical scientists'. While I'm sure they have been responsible for loads and loads of good theory's, this is absolute shit in my eyes.

 

I honestly can't debate for this. There is nothing here worth debating, and I can't request this closed.. OP please bring an argument to help a side of this.

 

Rigorous proof has been elusive? What kind of "rigorous proof" would be required to prove that the universe we see is essentially an illusion?

Did Max Planck's eschewing of the idea of light as a continuous wave in order to solve the black body problem not lead to the development of quantum mechanics, and subsequently to a shift in the contemporary understanding of concepts like time, space, matter, and so forth?

Those are some pretty hefty assumptions. How much have Einstein's theories changed in the past century?


Also, Newton believed matter to be composed of solid, unmovable particles. Quantum theory has shown that matter is in fact made of particles that not only change positions frequently, but are also mostly empty space.

edit: I am mistaken. Newton thought matter was composed of "hard, impenetrable, movable particles". QT, however, demonstrated that matter consists of particles that are mostly empty space and do not move; they merely transition between 'states'.



Whether or not a theory is true now, doesn't mean it will always remain that way.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/222/1/012007

there's a link to download the pdf above the references tab

 

what a hoax xD

 

This further proves my point. The idea of light being a continuous wave was made to solve the black body problem on the basis that it would corroborate with the current theories at the time, NOT evidence. However, Planck rejected the idea either for this reason, or because other experiments he was performing at the time had given him the hunch that this idea was incorrect.

I'm simply arguing that it's not appropriate to make such vast conclusions just so we can have certain theories remain in check. For example, I don't argue that humans are ancestors with apes because "well, that would agree with the theory of evolution", I argue using either proof (perhaps a little difficult to perform in this case) or evidence (such as fossil evidence). I first make a discovery, THEN I check to see if what I've discovered agrees with its appropriately associated theory. Not the other way around.

 

I'm fairly certain it was because the calculations involved in the black body problem yielded energy = infinity when light was treated as a continuous wave. Why he chose to describe light as quanta in particular, I don't know.
He was known to be an intuitive mathematician, so it's not impossible that it may have been a hunch, or just a long shot that worked. But I'm not sure, so don't hold me to that.

It seems that they're making more than just conclusions. According to the article,

"In one paper, Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence. In the other, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match."


Why is starting with a conclusion (pardon the apparent semantic contradiction) outlandish if evidence is then procured that corroborates the conjecture?





My original question is aimed at anyone who wishes to respond: what kind of rigorous proof is needed to prove that our visible universe is an illusion?

 

I recently saw a documentary about this theory, found it a very interesting point of view, whether I agree with it or not. I can't remember its name but will post it when I do.

what a spam infraction

 

I'm going to sound a little off by saying this, but I feel they're going about this in the wrong way. I believe you can prove literally anything on paper, however, you can't prove the parameters of a location without the exact starting or current location with reference points either.

People who try to explain and research the fundamental concepts have every bit of my respect, but the first rule in numerical modelling is to understand how that specific system works and what are the starting parameters.

It's basically impossible to begin the models in a numerical form and expect them to be somewhat close whenever we know so little about the layout to begin with.

 

I'm sorry .... Won't happen again meh

 

Man what acid are you on man lol

 

This is actually pretty interesting. I've always been into this type of shit.

 

I heard that there isn't much proof leading to this claim, but scientists aren't able to disprove it?

Seems unlikely, but I'm pretty happy to live in it even if it is a hologram.