Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Are black holes HOLOGRAMS?


Anomalocaris

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

They are among the most mysterious objects in the universe as the irresistible pull of their gravity allows nothing, not even light, to escape. But new research has suggested that black holes may in fact merely be holograms. This is according to theoretical physicists who have developed a new way of estimating the chaotic states that exist beyond the event horizons of black holes.

See more

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
47 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

 

Thanks for the link. I wonder how the scientists will test that hypothesis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i agree and have also previously considered  that they would be the most obvious source of projection for a holographic universe, i still have a little trouble wrapping my mind around this. Maybe its the fact that matter seems to be falling in rather than coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important clue is that entropy and information is proportional to area, not volume. Imagine a cube of space, the information within that 3-dimensional cube is proportional to the area of the 2-dimensional surfaces of the cube, not on the 3-dimensional volume of the space within the cube.

So the information contained in 3-dimensional space is a 2-dimentional projection of that information. This is the way I understand it. .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2016 at 10:53 AM, StarMountainKid said:

An important clue is that entropy and information is proportional to area, not volume. Imagine a cube of space, the information within that 3-dimensional cube is proportional to the area of the 2-dimensional surfaces of the cube, not on the 3-dimensional volume of the space within the cube.

So the information contained in 3-dimensional space is a 2-dimentional projection of that information. This is the way I understand it. .

Yes i hear you but i still dont copy. Im left with so many more questions. So how do we know what the size of the information is? What is this flat thing that is projecting? Is the size dictated by higgs boson? Shouldnt it be obvious what direction this projection is coming from? How are they decifering information and its size and how different it is from whats in the black hole what exactly does that look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i hear you but i still dont copy. Im left with so many more questions. So how do we know what the size of the information is? What is this flat thing that is projecting? Is the size dictated by higgs boson? Shouldnt it be obvious what direction this projection is coming from? How are they decifering information and its size and how different it is from whats in the black hole what exactly does that look like?

Of course, I don't know the answers to your questions. This pic is from a Youtube documentary I can't recall right now. It seems all the information contained in a black hole is contained on the surface of its event horizon. I suppose all the information contained in the universe exists on its event horizon or on the 2-D area of its boundary.

It seems the information of any volume of space is contained on that area's boundary. There are some holographic principle documentaries on Youtube.

Bekenstein 2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/05/2016 at 6:53 PM, StarMountainKid said:

An important clue is that entropy and information is proportional to area, not volume. Imagine a cube of space, the information within that 3-dimensional cube is proportional to the area of the 2-dimensional surfaces of the cube, not on the 3-dimensional volume of the space within the cube.

So the information contained in 3-dimensional space is a 2-dimentional projection of that information. This is the way I understand it. .

The entropy of a black hole being proportional to it's area is something Hawking proposes, but contrary to how it has been reported (and I suspect, how the scientists behind the OP's study view that proposition) this does not suggest a black hole is a hologram.

A hologram is a 3-d representation of data projected from a 2-d medium, but what Hawking proposes suggests exactly that a black hole is a 2-d object - not a 3-d hologram. That the entropy of a black hole is proportional to it's area and not it's volume suggests the black hole has no volume and has only the appearance of a 3-d object because that is how it's existence in our universe can be perceived. A black hole is a surface (I'd actually describe it as a 1-d "mass-point", considering it has no volume) without any interior - or at least, no interior that exists in our universe. That the physics of our universe appears to break down at the event horizon would seem to support this view.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these four quotes may clear up some misconceptions.

Emergence:

Quote

In general, we say that a property is "emergent" when it is obvious at large scales, even though it does not exist on smaller scale. Here is an example. The color of a wall is a large scale property... However, when we get to a very small scale, the idea of "color" does not work. The color we see depends on how the fundamental particles (electrons, neutrons, and protons) are arranged. But each of these fundamental particles does not have a color.

Quote

Similarly, we can say that space-time itself is "emergent" from a fundamentally quantum system. On large scales is looks like what we are used to. However, on small scales the concepts of position do not exist...This fundamental quantum system "looks like" classical spacetime in a macroscopic limit.

Quote

First, when physicists say the universe is "really" two-dimensional, they don't mean the third dimension doesn't exist. Rather they mean it's an

emergent rather than fundamental property of spacetime. If you zoom in far enough, a solid doesn't look very solid at all, but this doesn't make "solid" any less real or valid for describing our day-to-day experience. Similarly, the claim is that at some scale, spacetime can be described mathematically using two dimensions instead of three, and as you approach the scale of everyday life, it begins to look increasingly three-dimensional.

Quote

Second, the term "holographic" unfortunately calls to mind words like "illusion" and "simulation" which really have nothing to do with the Holometer or any aspect of the Holographic Principle. The notion that our familiar three-dimensional universe is somehow encoded in two dimensions at the most fundamental level does not imply that there is anybody or anything "outside" the two-dimensional representation, "projecting" the illusion or "running" the simulation.

https://holometer.fnal.gov/faq.html

So, to my understanding, there is no 2-D surface "out there somewhere" projecting our 3-D universe, Our perceived three dimensional scale of our universe is an emergence encoded at the quantum mechanical scale. 

Every area of Planck-size volume of space time is the 2-D "projector" of its own 3-D space time. So there is no hologram separate from the universe itself.

This is my understanding.

Edited by StarMountainKid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/06/2016 at 8:32 PM, StarMountainKid said:

I think these four quotes may clear up some misconceptions.

Emergence:

https://holometer.fnal.gov/faq.html

So, to my understanding, there is no 2-D surface "out there somewhere" projecting our 3-D universe, Our perceived three dimensional scale of our universe is an emergence encoded at the quantum mechanical scale. 

Every area of Planck-size volume of space time is the 2-D "projector" of its own 3-D space time. So there is no hologram separate from the universe itself.

This is my understanding.

Planck space is not 2 dimensional. The size of each 'quanta' of Planck space may be very, very tiny, but it has a definite size in all 3 dimensions. So, Planck space cannot be a "2-d projector" - because it is not 2-d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planck space is not 2 dimensional. The size of each 'quanta' of Planck space may be very, very tiny, but it has a definite size in all 3 dimensions. So, Planck space cannot be a "2-d projector" - because it is not 2-d.

Yes, I see what you mean. However, I stated that, "Every area of Planck-size volume of space time is the 2-D "projector" of its own 3-D space time".

Yes, a Planck volume has 3 dimensions, but it is the area of this volume that contains the information, not the volume itself. So in this sense, the area of a 3 dimensional Planck volume is a 2 dimensional object. So, this 2 dimensional object (the surface of this volume) is the "projector" of the information of the 3 dimensional volume. 

I may have not stated this clearly enough, but I believe my original statement, though not phrased well, is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

 

 

Yes, I see what you mean. However, I stated that, "Every area of Planck-size volume of space time is the 2-D "projector" of its own 3-D space time".

Yes, a Planck volume has 3 dimensions, but it is the area of this volume that contains the information, not the volume itself. So in this sense, the area of a 3 dimensional Planck volume is a 2 dimensional object. So, this 2 dimensional object (the surface of this volume) is the "projector" of the information of the 3 dimensional volume. 

I may have not stated this clearly enough, but I believe my original statement, though not phrased well, is correct.

If space is composed of 3-d objects (the Planck unit sized 'quanta'), then there is no need for there to be any 3-d projection or "emergence" from a 2-d "data surface". What Holographic Universe proponents claim to be an "emergent property" is actually the real state of spacetime, and it is their 2-d "data source" which is illusory.

My suspicion is that the Holographic Universe Hypothesis suffers from a basic logical fallacy in that, to derive a "3-d projected universe from a 2-d data source", it has to be assumed there exists a 2-d source - so of course the maths, etc, will appear to support the hypothesis because it is circular reasoning. Now, HUH proponents might suggest the assumption our universe is not a Hologram and the 'reality' of it is as we observe may be likewise a deception brought about by our inability to "see through" our own limitations, but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I am inclined to presume that something to be a duck - not a chicken.

I don't see any reason to presume HUH is anything other than a thought exercise, without any actual foundation in experiment or observation. And I believe it is the same mistake that forms the basis of the 'discovery' proposed by those scientists who suggest a black hole is likewise a hologram.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.