2D Universe?
Posted: 22 May 2013 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

What do you think about the Holographic Universe (whole information of the universe on 2d Surface) researched by Craig Hogan, Leonard Susskind?
Is everything just 2d?

What do you think?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14
Alexander80 - 22 May 2013 06:05 AM

What do you think about the Holographic Universe (whole information of the universe on 2d Surface) researched by Craig Hogan, Leonard Susskind?
Is everything just 2d?

What do you think?

Very, very speculative. It’s the kind of thing that gets in the popular press because it’s cool to think about, not because there’s anything remotely approaching a scientific consensus about it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 07:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1423
Joined  2010-04-22

I think that the 2d universe concept is probably a useful tool for people who want to deal with the physics of information management. I don’t try to visualize it too much, because my puny human brain isn’t designed to do that. But I can respect the predictive power of these kinds of tools that physicists use.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Read something about it, hard to understand.

So Leonard Susskind only talks about the possiblity of information being encoded on a 2d surface of the universe, not about the universe being really only the surface?

[ Edited: 22 May 2013 09:38 AM by Alexander80 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  814
Joined  2012-04-25

This is where theoretical physics starts to lose me (my support, not my knowledge, which is not much to start with).  I remember way back when I took Quantum Mech 101 in college, thinking to myself, something’s not quite kosher here. They seem to regard certain of the equations as actually existing as real things that interact with the physical universe versus just useful, though highly complex, tools.  This 2D stuff sounds like that.

I also start to wonder, at those extreme small scales, how do they know they’re looking at something real versus a “ghost” of the tools they’re using?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Do we have a Physicist in the Audience?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Didn’t this start with the old but great book called Flatland?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3321
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 22 May 2013 06:40 PM

Didn’t this start with the old but great book called Flatland?

Occam

Flatland, published in 1882.  Author: Edwin Abbott.  I guess he was ahead of his time. And who knew that squares, polygons, etc., face some of the same social problems as we, in our less dimensionally-challenged existence?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2013 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4572
Joined  2007-08-31

A quite understandable explanation by Susskind on youtube here.

It boils down to the fact that the informational content of a blackhole is proportional to the size of the surface of the event horizon of a black hole, instead to its volume. Now the event horizon is the border from behind which no information can reach us because it would need to be faster than light. We have something similar with the universe as a whole: because two points in the universe move from each other the faster they are from each other, there is an event horizon in the sense that they move from each other faster than light, so no information can be exchanged anymore. So the whole of the 3-dimensional visible universe has the same information content as the two dimensional surface of the event horizon.

So far my 4 sentence summary of the 55 minutes video…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile