

How an argument with Hawking suggested the Universe is a hologram - aditiyaa1
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

======
stephth
_What was missing from the discussion was an attempt to tackle one of the
issues that plagues string theory: the math may all work out and it could
provide a convenient way of looking at the world, but is it actually related
to anything in the actual, physical Universe? Nobody even attempted to tackle
that question._

I was surprised and happy to read this part. With my multiple attempts (and
mostly failing) to understand quantum mechanics or string theory, I got the
impression that this topic is never approached, and that omission never
explained. If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has
multiple parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to
our lives.

I think that's what lead me to the _impression_ \- as an _outsider_ \- that
fascinating sounding things like the many-worlds interpretation are beautiful
ideas that do not exist outside of equations, they're a kind of science
fiction, a kind that is backed by mathematics and published in journals.

~~~
jpeterson
_If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has multiple
parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to our
lives._

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to demand that any theoretical truth about the
nature of the entire universe should be relatable to the life of a human?

~~~
omarchowdhury
It is not presumptuous. The very human is the one pondering about this
'truth': it very well relates to him as the 'nature' of the Universe contains
man within it, does it not? So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does
man.

If it were the case that there are multiple parallel futures, then we ask
ourselves:

How do I navigate myself to the best-possible future for me and those who
surround me?

It is your very actions day by day that determine where it is that you go.

~~~
ugh
_So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man._

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that humans are able to understand nature in a way
that relates to them, at least not on all levels. We weren’t built for large
and small scales, our brain is only intuitively familiar with human scales. A
second to a century. One millimeter to 100 kilometer. A few centimeters per
day to a few dozen kilometers per hour.

I don’t think _intuitiveness_ should be a deciding factor when it comes to
describing nature.

~~~
omarchowdhury
"Doesn't mean that humans are able to understand.."

I guess all of the work in physics, chemistry and other sciences of the past
thousands years was all in delusion?

Nothing was learned, nothing.

~~~
ugh
You are missing half a sentence there.

It looks like humans are very capable of understanding non-human-scale nature,
just not intuitively.

------
ImperatorLunae
I love it when the "quirks" break the whole theory. This is what happened in
the late 1800's; there were only minor flaws in Physics that needed to be
ironed out.

Of course, when that started, the garment caught on fire.

------
stephth
How does this relate with Talbot's perspective(s) on the universe as a
hologram?

<http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html>

~~~
jerf
Hawking et. al. are arguing about an idea that has equations and some sort of
potential physical meaning, and in accordance with the Correspondence
Principle [1] has only the most subtle of impact on the rest of physics as we
know it, if true. It's an idea that can be disproved, and may have been
disproved: <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/hologram-universe/>

The essay you linked to is Deepak Chopra-style quanto-babble with little
content that can actually be translated into something meaningful in the real
world. Indeed, one must ask the question, if "reductionist" scientists are so
fundamentally wrong about everything, then how come they can so successfully
predict so much? Is there some physical experiment that can be run that this
will produce better predictions for?

So, I'd say the relationship is that Hawking et al are doing science, and
Talbot is using their work as the seed for his internal random number
generator.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle>

------
robryan
I like to try and keep up with physics and am interested in astronomy but this
stuff really goes straight over my head. If this is correct what are the
implications?

------
ZoFreX
> "When Hawking says 'rubbish,'" he said, "you've lost the argument."

I hope this is an exaggerated anecdote and not actually the case.

------
awaz
I was surprised that the article did not mention entropy even once. It rather
used the term 'information content'.

