
Are We Living in a Hologram? - evo_9
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-hologram.html
======
ars
The original experiment found noise.

So what they are doing is building two identical experiments and comparing
their noise.

If the noise from both experiments is the same that may be evidence that it's
not actually random noise, but a signal of some kind.

------
sosuke
I was able to get a much better grasp on what the Holometer aims to measure on
the Fermilab Holometer website <http://holometer.fnal.gov/index.html>, really
nifty stuff!

------
sev
I recently read "Holographic Universe"[1], which is all about this topic.

An interesting fact about holograms that the book points out is that, if you
cut any piece from a hologram, the image contained within that piece will be
the entire hologram's image, with more distortion or noise...not a part of the
image as would be expected from cutting a regular image or photo.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Michael-
Talbot/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Michael-
Talbot/dp/0060922583)

------
martinkallstrom
Perchance the jitter occurs because we are moving quite fast through a fine
voxel grid which is the underlying representation of the world in a simulator
inside someones computer. Measure the actual distance between the endpoints of
a line drawn on a pixel display as the line is repeatedly redrawn in new
positions, and the results will be noisy. Perhaps our creators simply didn't
care enough to implement anti-aliasing?

~~~
ars
It's unlikely that there is an underlying voxel grid because that would not be
compatible with relativity.

If we are in a computer, then you would need some other type of representation
where voxels are local to each other - perhaps by storing distance between
every pair of voxels that can interact.

~~~
iwwr
Not necessarily voxels, but possibly discrete connected structures, arranged
in a graph.

~~~
martinkallstrom
Would relativity then be a necessary component in a simulation, with an effort
put into implementing the correct mechanics? Or could relativity be a side
effect of an underlying representation you chose in order to achieve something
else, like the massive parallellism needed to compute the next discreet step
in the simulation?

~~~
ars
If you have e=mc2 then relativity happens mostly automatically (Because energy
is mass, it makes objects heavier when they go fast, and since they are
heavier it takes even more energy to accelerate them, take that to the limit
and c becomes the fastest you can go.)

And once you have that you realize that energy is relative (because speed is
relative, otherwise you can easily get free energy by having two slow object
who's speed adds up to c), and the rest of the coding falls out from there.

I'm not sure if relativity is necessary for the coding, and you do it in
reverse. I think e=mc2 was first and everything followed from there.

~~~
martinkallstrom
Thank you for following up my chain of thought.. you are clearly the go-to guy
for universe simulation implementations. Let me know when you are available to
put in a couple of man-centuries of development. I'll provide funding, food
and not too alien coworkers.

------
dedward
I'll have to read it again a couple of times, but it seems to be a sort of
incorrect mashing together and misunderstanding about the holographic
principle related to black holes, and some other stuff.

