
Fermilab is building a "Holometer" to test theory of holographic universe - dmoney
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe/
======
brown9-2
[http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/dw3sh/will_you_moro...](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/dw3sh/will_you_morons_stop_submitting_stories_about/)

~~~
zargon
The original post doesn't appear to misuse the technical term holographic. If
a journalist twists their story into "reality is virtual" or "we might live in
the matrix" then they would be reporting their sensationalist (perhaps
intentional) misunderstanding, and this guy would be right. But I don't see
how it applies to this article. It could be better explained, but it doesn't
completely misrepresent the science. The holographic principle is legit
physics.

Did you post this for the comments that explain the difference between the
holographic principle and Star Trek?

~~~
jessriedel
> The original post doesn't appear to misuse the technical term holographic.

If fact, the lead sentence is exactly such misuse: "The 3D universe in which
we appear to live is no more than a hologram." I don't think I've ever heard a
physicist use the word "hologram" to talk about the holographic principle, so
that word can only be interpreted as an actual, star-trek style hologram.

~~~
zargon
Such phrasing is not all that uncommon. But I agree the following few
paragraphs could do a better job explaining what the word means.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgi6E1ECgo>

~~~
jessriedel
Frankly, I'm more inclined to fault Bousso for using misleading language.
That's a lecture for a general audience. The word "hologram" isn't used in
physics articles except for poetic fluff. For instance, in Bousso's much-cited
review article, the word is used exactly once in the main text:

"Holographic screens with this information density can be constructed for
arbitrary spacetimes—in this sense, the world is a hologram."

This is mostly marketing.

------
KaeseEs
"In a classical interferometer, first developed in the late 1800s, a laser
beam in a vacuum hits a mirror called a beamsplitter, which breaks it in two."

Uh...

~~~
hugh3
I can _just_ parse that as being sensible. Classical interferometers were
first developed in the late 1800s, and if you put a laser in one then it will
hit a beamsplitter.

(Similar: "In a steam locomotive, first developed in the early 1800s, a robot
arm shovels coal into a furnace")

Not the best writing, though.

------
kleiba
> "To Hogan, the jitteriness suggested that the experiment had stumbled upon
> the lower limit of the spacetime pixels’ resolution."

Couldn't they just enhance that?

------
randlet
The background on that site makes it nearly unreadable for me.

~~~
codeswimmer
Readability (<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>) takes care of
that.

So does Instapaper (<http://www.instapaper.com/>).

~~~
randlet
I'd heard of readability but never used it. Wow what a difference that makes.
Thanks!

