
Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe - upen
http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/9834.html
======
blincoln
Possibly dumb question, but I know my niece is going to ask me about this, and
I'd like to be able to give her a solid response: does this mean that most
distances within our universe are illusory? If not, why not?

To expand on that thought a little bit, with a hologram, the projected object
is an illusion, and can be made to appear to move at arbitrary speed by e.g.
rotating the projection apparatus. On a larger scale, it's possible to create
the illusion of FTL movement by e.g. rapidly rotating a laser projector in
space and then traveling a long distance from it, so that at a certain
distance from the source, it appears that there is a projection from the
source which is rotating faster than light.

If this theory models the universe as a 3D (or more) projection from a 2D
surface, why is it not possible to cause objects within our perceived 3D+
universe to appear to move faster than light by causing some sort of change to
the 2D surface itself? I assume there is a reason this is not possible within
the bounds of this theory, but I have no idea what that reason might be.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes, but it's not the case that everything is equidistant. Allow me to
illustrate with a simplified example from lower dimensions.

(Warning: pseudoscientific bullshit ahead)

Picture a transparent sphere, covered in tiny dots. Imagine that you live on
one of these dots and the others are stars. Now, mark 'your' dot and look
around on the sphere to find the dot that is farthest away, on the opposite
side. If the internal radius of this sphere is 1 unit, then the distance to
that dot (traveling on the surface of the sphere) is pi units. Imagine
yourself in Edwin abbott's Flatland, but thanks to relativity you know this
flat universe to be finite and bounded, such that if you set out in any
direction in a straight line you will eventually arrive back at your starting
point.

Now, let's designate that point opposite you on the sphere as the Maximally
Distant Star. There's no doubt, no matter what route you take along the
surface of the sphere, this is as far as you can go before you begin coming
back, if that makes sense. But suppose you were able to transit across the
interior of the sphere instead of across the surface. It's still the farther
point from you, but by transiting by volume instead of on the surface the
distance is only 2 units, or 63% as far as it appears to the surface-dwellers.

Of course, this realization is of little help in figuring out how you as a
Flatlander can access that theoretical 'volume' so as to shorten your
transition time. If you could, you'd seem to disappear at your existing
location (most likely by shrinking down to a point, or possibly seeming to
turn inside out, or both) and then reappear at your destination, assuming you
hadn't been eaten by the great old ones said to inhabit that forbidden space
by famous horror author J. Q. Likecraft.

~~~
brianberns
This makes sense, but seems to be an answer to a different question about the
curvature of spacetime. How does it relate to the universe being a hologram?

~~~
sandworm101
It doesnt. The hologram is a metaphore. Once upon a time our 3/4 dimension
world was encoded upon a world with fewer dimensions LIKE a 2d hologram
contains the info of a 3d image.

This world didnt last very long. Under our concept of time it happened long
ago, but we can see evidence of it smeared across the sky in the cosmic
microwave background. (A 2d image that should look the same no matter where
you stand in our 3d space.)

------
patcon
I've recently been thinking on how our human definition of intelligence might
relate to holographic principles, particularly in regards to information
theory.

We are small creatures, but our networks -- our brains and societies --
represent the most complex information-encoding geometries we've yet seen in
the universe.

And I see the way that our curiosity reaches upward in scale, documenting the
far corners and folds of the universe; and deeper, interrogating the tiny
subatomic spaces; and forward and back, building models of the future and past
of this point in time.

And we capture this knowledge and bring it into our tiny space, information
encoded in structures along the skin of this rock floating in space.

And I wonder if that's not holographic in some way: That insatiable drive to
compress information from massive scales of space and time into the tiniest of
spaces...

But of course, this is just armchair philosophizing ;)

~~~
captain_crabs
Haha, beautifully put, but I often wonder the opposite. What if our capacity
to perceive and think is so limited and narrow that most of the underlying
workings of reality are completely missed by us? The what if being, we are not
so special as we think. The way an ant colony will bustle full of self-import
and purpose, blissfully unaware of the giant people passing by. And the people
pay it no mind, because they can't interact meaningfully with the ant colony,
so while one is aware of the other and far more about the world, the reverse
isn't true.

~~~
ashark
Mix those thoughts with a healthy does of "human values don't necessarily have
any relation to alien values, which may be just as incomprehensible to
humanity as the true nature of the universe" and you've basically got the
Cosmic Horror fiction genre.

~~~
hooph00p
and here I was trying to _avoid_ an existential crisis today. There that goes.

~~~
ge96
Could be a dimensional thing too, what if you're like an exhibit in someone's
living room like a hologram and you just live your life for someone's
amusement. You'd never know but can you prove that it's happening?

~~~
omio
Reminds me of _The Thirteenth Floor_.

~~~
ge96
Oh I like that movie, man haven't seen that in a while. I don't know, what
makes something "real" or "more genuine"? I heard this podcast that mentioned
this same concept regarding your brain acting like a computer perceiving sound
as binary input through the little hairs in your ears... I don't know. What's
real is this fear I feel from debt collectors haha.

------
tvural
First, here is a link that is not hidden behind a paywall:
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf)

> there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the
> universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of
> these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

This is a bit misleading, especially the phrase "substantial evidence". I bet
that the authors of the paper would not have used this phrasing. From the
paper:

> We emphasise that the application of holography to cosmology is conjectural,
> the theoretical validity of such dualities is still open and different
> authors approach the topic in different ways.

Essentially, their paper shows that a holographic model cannot be ruled out
simply by comparing the predictions it makes for the CMB to observation. It
also gives some intuition for why a holographic model might make sense - at
sufficiently early times in the Universe quantum and gravitational effects
begin to coincide, and in other contexts people have modeled quantum gravity
using "a quantum field theory with no gravity in one dimension less". The
paper finds, however, that there is no empirical case to be made for
discarding the standard model of inflation:

> We see that the difference between evidence for [the standard model] and HC
> predictions is insignifcant, with marginal preference for HC, depending on
> the choice of priors.

------
Osmium
Question, from someone who does not understand the Holographic universe idea:

If 'true', is the holographic universe 'merely' a mathematical tool that helps
us solve problems, or is it a description of an objective reality, and the
universe is 'really' a 2D surface, and our 3D perception is somehow illusory?

I understand this is partly a philosophy of science question, but would be
interested to hear an expert opinion ...

~~~
d0mine
All models are wrong. If a model is not wrong; it is called reality.
[http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/57407/what-is-
the-m...](http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/57407/what-is-the-meaning-
of-all-models-are-wrong-but-some-are-useful)

~~~
curiousgal
To me, saying that model or a theory is wrong is like saying a hammer is
wrong. A tool cannot be right/wrong or true/false. However it can be
unsuitable for a task. In this case, the task is understanding reality.

~~~
d0mine
It is the second part of the quote (follow the link above): "all models are
wrong. Some are useful" \-- you are talking about the suitability/usefulness
of a model.

------
droopybuns
I cant tell if all of the comments here are genuine, or the output of some
high performance markov chains.

Also, i have absolutely no ability to penetrate what is being described by
this article. Holograms work by applying lasers to different surfaces and re-
rendering the image relative to the original laser's point of view. How does
the word 'holographic' apply?

~~~
losteric
Holograms are 2d images that look 3d from our perspective.

Similarly, this theory is that our perceived reality of 3 spatial dimensions +
time is actually fully contained on a 2d surface.

~~~
droopybuns
Thank you for taking the time to try to educate me.

I think that this metaphor is flawed. Holograms project an illusion of depth,
but they clearly are not 3 dimensional. The metaphor falls apart if your
thought process includes the assumption that eyesight is an unreliable depth
detector.

There are other methods for detecting x/y/z coordinates that do not rely on
eyesight- consequently, I'm having a hard time reconciling what the metaphor
describes.

I feel that Platz's material below is more descriptive and helps communicate
the concepts in a far less confusing way.

------
remir
It's crazy to think we are the universe observing and trying to understand
itself. Matter organised in a certain way is able to observe itself? How weird
is that!

~~~
wturner
This is the perspective that I hardly ever hear discussed when the issue of
"human freedom" is brought up. If you assume we are a result of the big bang,
then the causal relationship infers humans are not free. If on the other hand
you assume humans "are" the universe, then an entirely different perspective
seems to be possible albeit one that is much more confusing to reason about.

~~~
azeirah
Daniel Dennet wrote a book arguing for the existence of free will despite the
determinism of the universe.

It's called the evolution of free will. You might want to check that out if
you'd like to know more about that perspective.

~~~
rocqua
I have found that discussions on 'free will' tend to be doomed from the start
because no-one can agree on a definition of free will.

------
TwoFactor
It's interesting that to a layman this seems like almost the exact opposite of
what string theory proposes dimensionally. Holographic universe theory is
stating there are effectively less dimensions, while string theory shows there
could be significantly more.

~~~
atomicfiredoll
This is the first time I've read anything about Holographic universe theory
and I really don't understand anything about it yet. But, does this mean we
were the ones living in a 2-dimensional "flatland" the whole time?

~~~
xyzzy4
I think it means the max amount of information in the observable universe is
bounded by the amount of information that could fit on the 2D surface of a
spherical event horizon of a black hole of the same size.

~~~
ORioN63
Is there a why? I got curious.

~~~
xyzzy4
If you take all the mass and energy of the observable universe and throw it
into a black hole, its event horizon would expand and encode all the
information you put into it. Information can't be destroyed so that's why it
is encoded in the event horizon. The diameter of the event horizon would also
be much smaller than the diameter of the observable universe, because there's
a lot of empty space in the universe, and we don't see everything collapsing
inwards due to too much mass. So if you had an event horizon with the diameter
of the observable universe, it would encode a lot more information than what's
in our observable universe. Note I'm just a layman here and I could be
interpreting it incorrectly.

------
mrskeltal
This is like the wang carpets from Greg Egan's Diaspora novel.

------
neals
I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence:

" [...] our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its
boundaries."

What, exactly, do they mean with 'on its boundries'?

~~~
PaulAJ
I'm familiar with the idea of coordinate transforms and projections, so I get
the idea that you could project our 3D universe onto a 2D surface, and I kind
of see how a hologram encodes 3D information, but I don't see how that is a
useful idea. Or are there only certain kinds of 4D information that can be
encoded in the 2D surface, so our 4D model of space and time gets reduced to a
theory of only 2 dimensions? Are there conceivable arrangements of a 4D
universe that can't be represented in this way?

~~~
marcosdumay
Laymen "easy" language makes everything harder to understand.

The holographic principle means that if you take a sphere somewhere, the
amount of entropy you can push there grows with r^2, and not with r^3 like
you'd expect.

~~~
bsaul
Thanks a lot. I've just watched susskind talk on the universe as a hologram (
[https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY](https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY) ), and it didn't
occured to me until i read what you just said simply that the holographic
principle meant you could actually push _less_ stuff / bits in a black hole by
growing it, than you first thought if you compared it to a volume growing. So
that meant information was stored on its surface (r^2), and not inside it
(r^3).

Am i correct ?

~~~
marcosdumay
Keep in mind that IANAP.

The information stored is proportional to the surface, not volume.

But also, the holographic principle applies to more than black holes. At any
volume, the maximum information you can put there is proportional to r^2. That
applies to all the volumes inside the volume you just measured... what means
that a volume can not be completely full (a weird case of apparent non-
locality).

An hologram is a better analogue to it than information being stored on the
surface because, outside of black holes it apparently isn't all on the
surface. (I guess for the black hole information loss problem, information
being in the surface or in a hologram don't make much difference.)

------
Severian
I wonder if this theory supports the idea that the universe inhabits a black
hole, or at least the surface of one.

~~~
yaks_hairbrush
Actually, the big bang bears a pretty striking resemblance to a white hole.
That's the time-reversed version of a black hole. Whereas with a black hole,
all paths lead toward the singularity at its core, with a white hole, all
paths lead away from the singularity.

~~~
dkonofalski
And there you go... there's the answer to everything. A black hole on one side
and, on the other side (the side we don't know), there's a whole new universe
being sprung up. Each input goes to the output of a different black/white hole
combo.

~~~
andrepd
Tempting, but there's no evidence to support that.

~~~
stephancoral
Indeed, but there is research underway to find evidence:

<< Black holes are extremely dense and compact objects from which light cannot
escape. There is an overall consensus that black holes exist and many
astronomical objects are identified with black holes. White holes were
understood as the exact time reversal of black holes, therefore they should
continuously throw away material. It is accepted, however, that a persistent
ejection of mass leads to gravitational pressure, the formation of a black
hole and thus to the "death of while holes". So far, no astronomical source
has been successfully tagged a white hole. The only known white hole is the
Big Bang which was instantaneous rather than continuous or long-lasting. We
thus suggest that the emergence of a white hole, which we name a 'Small Bang',
is spontaneous - all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Unlike black
holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect can
only be detected around the event itself. Gamma ray bursts are the most
energetic explosions in the universe. Long gamma-ray bursts were connected
with supernova eruptions. There is a new group of gamma-ray bursts, which are
relatively close to Earth, but surprisingly lack any supernova emission. We
propose identifying these bursts with white holes. White holes seem like the
best explanation of gamma-ray bursts that appear in voids. We also predict the
detection of rare gigantic gamma-ray bursts with energies much higher than
typically observed. >>

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2776](https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2776)

~~~
vorg
> The only known white hole is the Big Bang which was instantaneous rather
> than continuous or long-lasting

Even if the Big Bang was a continuous long-lasting process of energy/matter
appearing, wouldn't the effects of General Relativity make it look like, from
the perspective of observers later on within the Universe, that all the
energy/matter appeared instantaneously?

------
jayajay
Very misleading title! This article doesn't really discuss the "evidence", you
will need to dig deeper. The article is a summary of what holography is, and
not much more.

> They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain
> nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.

This seems to be very, very old news. Like all theories, holography sounds
very interesting. This article implies that a prediction made by holography
has been observed. This is not the case, apparently. The math may a lot more
elegant, but what new predictions are there, and have we observed them? This
is what the article claimed to be about, alas it wasn't.

------
martincmartin
There's good background information in the Wikipedia article on the
Holographic principle:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)

The latest Scientific American has an article on why some physicists are
calling for rejection of cosmic inflation theory:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-
inflation-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-
theory-faces-challenges/)

Although it seems to be paywalled.

------
nargella
A friend of mine has been trying convince me and my peers for like 2 years
that the universe is holofractal. Holofractal is different than holographic
[1] but is also an interesting idea.

Things like the Em Drive device and this are really making physics interesting
again.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/5r3i83/hologra...](https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/5r3i83/hologram_holographic_what_is_it/)

------
basicplus2
This shows how philosophy is rather important when trying to come to an
understanding.

Different philosophy can result in different theory of explanation and
different direction of model building.

~~~
KennyCason
agree very so much. I responded to another answer where someone's comment was
questioned as being poetic or metaphorical and not scientific. :)

------
oelmekki
As a non physicist, there's something I don't get in the comparaison with 3d
tv. From what I gathered, the only reason 3d tv is 3d is because it exploits
the fact we have two eyes, distant from one another, which can provide a depth
view when seeing the same thing at two different angles, or when being tricked
into thinking it's that way.

What would mean a "holographic 2d space encoding 3d space" detached from an
illusion made by someone observing it?

------
wodencafe
What does this mean?

The universe is fake? Is this along the same lines as "everything is a
simulation"?

~~~
yannis
Think of it, as if God is pulling a joke on us or the physicists.

~~~
knightofmars
Why all the down-votes? I'm an atheist and I found this comment amusing.

------
acqq
The abstract of the paper about which the article reports is less dramatic:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878)

"By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a
better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally)
better fit to data without very low multipoles."

So the non-holographic model seems to be better globally even according to the
paper.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-
CDM_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

If the further research proves that holographic models are better, it's good
too, let the best wins. But at the moment it still looks to be too early to
conclude too much.

------
ivan_ah
arXiv link:
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878)

------
VanillaCafe
Consider a mathematical spherical construct that contains more than the the
r^2 amount of entropy than can be described by the Holographic Principle. What
makes that not possible under the theory? What breaks down? Is there a
physical analogy for it?

~~~
bermanoid
From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle):

'However, there exist classical solutions to the Einstein equations that allow
values of the entropy larger than those allowed by an area law, hence in
principle larger than those of a black hole. These are the so-called
"Wheeler's bags of gold". The existence of such solutions conflicts with the
holographic interpretation, and their effects in a quantum theory of gravity
including the holographic principle are not yet fully understood.'

------
sova
Very relevant:
[http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm](http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm)

------
rrggrr
IANP, but its seems as if the measurement problem will always cause us to
observe, more accurately measure, a 2D projection and maximum entropy; where
before the wave collapse a 3D+ universe and perhaps infinite entropy existed.

In the same way that two trains traveling at different speeds are warped to
the observer, it would seem to me that we would need to observe the wave in
real-time to accurately observe it.

Again, INAP.

------
kevrone
The headline is tantalizing, but this is almost impossible to grok for a
layperson like me.

------
faragon
Does anyone know how could affect that to wormholes? [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole)

------
ImTalking
Does this mean that consciousness is a dimension? Would a (say) lifeless
planet 'be' 3D if not observed or would it remain encoded in 2D? (Asked by a
layman).

------
chadpaulson
The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality by the late
Michael Talbot is a must read for those interested in exploring this topic.

------
tripzilch
So now the entire _universe_ is 2D?

Wow, these flat-earthers are getting _ambitious_.

------
tempodox
Maybe my clock is time-dilated, but isn't 1st of April still months away?

------
llukas
Shitty scientific journalism. Abstract says something else but who cares.

~~~
spott
The abstract:

>We test a class of holographic models for the very early Universe against
cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard
cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant (ΛCDM) of cosmology. These
models are based on three-dimensional perturbative superrenormalizable quantum
field theory (QFT), and, while they predict a different power spectrum from
the standard power law used in ΛCDM, they still provide an excellent fit to
the data (within their regime of validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence
for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the
holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to the data without very
low multipoles (i.e., l≲30), where the QFT becomes nonperturbative.
Observations can be used to exclude some QFT models, while we also find models
satisfying all phenomenological constraints: The data rule out the dual theory
being a Yang-Mills theory coupled to fermions only but allow for a Yang-Mills
theory coupled to nonminimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice
simulations of 3D QFTs can provide nonperturbative predictions for large-angle
statistics of the cosmic microwave background and potentially explain its
apparent anomalies."

So, basically, the holographic models seem to be pretty good, in the areas
where it is perturbative (roughly l>30), it appears to fit slightly better
than the current theories ("lambda CDM" models). The paper can rule out some
of the holographic models because they don't fit the data, while other models
fit great. Finally, the non-perturbative holographic models (roughly l<=30)
might be able to be made to fit the data better if they are not calculated in
a perturbative sense.

This seems to be pretty close to what the article says...

~~~
llukas
What new evidence a model brings? Model can be used to plan experiment based
on it and that is _evidence_ (once you carry out the experiment that is).
Model is only used to explain how stuff is supposed to work.

Please read conclusion section of the paper.

example: Epicycles also explain how planet movement works - but it is not
evidence how it works it is explanation based on data.

------
throwaway91111
Is this actually evidence or lack of proof against?

~~~
jcranmer
The abstract says:

> We test a class of holographic models for the very early universe against
> cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard
> ΛCDM model of cosmology. These models are based on three dimensional
> perturbative super-renormalizable Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and while they
> predict a different power spectrum from the standard power-law used in ΛCDM,
> they still provide an excellent fit to data (within their regime of
> validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that
> ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a
> (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l≲30),
> where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative. Observations can be used to
> exclude some QFT models, while we also find models satisfying all
> phenomenological constraints: the data rules out the dual theory being Yang-
> Mills theory coupled to fermions only, but allows for Yang-Mills theory
> coupled to non-minimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice
> simulations of 3d QFT's can provide non-perturbative predictions for large-
> angle statistics of the cosmic microwave background, and potentially explain
> its apparent anomalies.

The evidence appears to be "this is almost as good as state-of-the-art normal
cosmic inflation theory." Which is to say, it's more of a lack of proof
against than strong evidence for--it's not providing explanations for
unexplained observances.

~~~
throwaway91111
Hmm, this actually makes me much more excited. I finished with grappling
existential issues about being a simulation a long time ago; I don't see the
point anymore. But if I understand this right, this would give us reason to
believe we could simulate absolutely tiny models of the universe with
relatively high (still quite low) confidence it's meaningful. Is that fair?

------
stevenh
You cannot code a particle simulator that perfectly mimics 3D space despite
each particle only having two spatial location variables.

We all have that new agey friend on FB who will inevitably share this
nonsense. Do we really need to be dealing with it on HN? What's next, Minion
memes?

~~~
HisGraceTheDuck
The holographic principle proposes a much more complex relationship between
the 3 dimensional (plus 1 time dimension) universe we experience and a 2
dimensional (plus 1 time dimension) model that could provide insights into
many interesting areas of physics including QFT, Cosmology, Black Holes, etc.

There is a very well developed model of how this relationship could work in a
simpler case. I suggest you have a look at this wikipedia page:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence)

Hopefully this mathematical model will convince you that the holographic
principle is, at the very least, more mature than a minion meme.

------
lngnmn
How a simulation could reveal anything? A simulation has no connection to
reality whatsoever. One single major (or even minor) factor missed in the
model, and the whole thing is a bullshit. Imaginable factors with real weights
- same kind of result.

Simulations and probabilistic estimations could be applied only to fully
observable environments.

~~~
Panoramix
Where did you get that this was a simulation? The were analyzing telescope
data.

~~~
lngnmn
Analysis presupposes some model.

~~~
Panoramix
The entirety of physics is a bunch of models that match reality to various
degrees, and which are able to predict things.

~~~
lngnmn
That does not mean that unproved (non-existent) factors should be added to a
model or that any inferences could be made from a simulated model.

Experiment, not a simulation is the criterion of validity in the scientific
method. Simulation is not a valid experiment.

Hypotheses and predictions are guesses, not facts and cannot be substituted
for facts or logical premises.

------
billionsfan1
While not conclusive, does this not sound like support for what could be
Intelligent Design - ID?

'Patterns imprinted in it carry information about the very early Universe and
seed the development of structures of stars and galaxies in the late time
Universe.' [From the Bulletin]

If the universe is encoded on a 2d surface and has been projected on 3d,
doesn't that sound like some design/intentional purpose encoded on the 2d
surface?

~~~
raziel2701
You can always inject god into the unknown. That's what history has shown us
over and over and as we slowly uncover how things work there are fewer places
to put god into. I see no difference here.

