RE: Holographic Universe? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Steponme73 -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/2/2010 5:48:09 PM)

I read about this a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure if the way they are going about it, will prove anything...but then who knows maybe we do not live in a 3 dimensional space...



FirmhandKY -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/2/2010 8:45:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steponme73

I read about this a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure if the way they are going about it, will prove anything...but then who knows maybe we do not live in a 3 dimensional space...

I'm not sure that any physicist believes that we have only three dimensions, currently.

The question has been how many more?

Firm



Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/2/2010 9:08:36 PM)



dimensions are limited to the math to describe the 3d universe.  The max possible mathematical dimensions as far as I am concerned is 8.

I do not believe any physicist who has not gone off the deep end believes "real matter" exists in more than a 3d world.   If you ever run across it do copy me in.

if so how?



MasterNJ20 -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/6/2010 9:35:54 PM)

Stephen Hawking backs M-Theory, which relies on 11 physical dimensions. These dimensions exist on a level you can not interact with on a day to day basis.

Like I suggested before, read into string theory and M theory. These are serious fields of research which rely on more than 3 physical dimensions. I believe M theory relies on 2d and 5d objects interacting with each other in 11d space, though I am not a physicist and wouldn't do much more than summarize others  research for you.



Termyn8or -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 12:48:46 AM)

Sorry I was away momentarily.

I recently read a fictional work my Mark Alpert IIRC called Final Theory. This as well as the book kinda jibes with my opinion on the matter. The book makes it evident that the author is familiar with the subject, even though it was fiction. They had a description of the theory and how it came about. Of course it is all someone's raving but it seemed to make sense.

The premise was that Einstein did get it done, and after review seemingly predicted the future discovery of different subatomic particles. The theory though was quite intriguing, stemming from the innumerable varibles, that such unknown varible was the heart of inconsistency and luck in predicting anything. Part of it was a supposintion that if you knew each and every varible you could predict for example the doll of the dice.

YMMV, but what I got from the whole premise is that the universe was figured out by simplifying it into two dimesions. It wasn't put quite that way, so the point could be missed. Also such a theory was discussed a few years ago in real life. Not exactly as depicted in the fiction, but close enough for horseshoes.

However what I have gleaned from all sources is that this theory that the entire universe exists in two dimensions obviously implies that the third dimesion is only percieved, at least that's what my logic tells me. however the theory supports instantaneous communication and travel beyond the speed of light, by far in fact.

I know the difference between a work of fiction and reality, but if one knows anything on the subject they might get the impression that the author knew what the hell he was writing about. The fictional or real, I really can't take it to fruition because I simply don't know enough. But I have never bought into the theory that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Yes I will agree that in some ways it is an absolute, but nothing in any of the science I've seen has convinced me it is a limit. Simply put - why would it be ?

The fiction also says that there are ten layers or dimensions, whatever. I reject that because in my view, their number should be infinity, just like points on a line*. (* basic geometry wise)

And this is all ideas, I mean the real world when it comes to this esoteric stuff in science. Disagree ? Well I'll have a pizza with quarks and neutrinos, and double antiprotons. So you shouldn't pooh pooh me because I mentioned fiction.

The universe a holograph ? Well DLP owners should be proud. Why ?

It is a simple matter to build a DLP 3D TV. If you have a DLP, your picture is at best a couple of inches wide, even if the screen is five feet. In a way what these theories suggest is that the universe operates in a similar manner. It is hard though for people to fathom the idea that we, along with all our stuff and everything, all exist on some form of substrate somewhere like an integraged circuit chip on some sort of plane surface. But noone can dispute it of course because the mole does not see the rooftop.

T



Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 8:27:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterNJ20

Stephen Hawking backs M-Theory, which relies on 11 physical dimensions. These dimensions exist on a level you can not interact with on a day to day basis.

Like I suggested before, read into string theory and M theory. These are serious fields of research which rely on more than 3 physical dimensions. I believe M theory relies on 2d and 5d objects interacting with each other in 11d space, though I am not a physicist and wouldn't do much more than summarize others  research for you.




Ok let me try to explain it like this.

The problem you run into with your version is that you took time which is a pure abstraction and combined it with matter and labeled the system at large as physical.

It follows the corrupt legal system btw which did the same thing as a means of gaining jurisdiction over people where they had none. (but that is entirely another story)

The movie matrix included in its theme the joinder of the unreal, with the real, to corrupt the real when agent smith traversed zion.  (as well as several other issues.....Like the wizard of oz it was a great movie on many levels.)

as a side it just goes to show however that all these concepts have a purpose and a common link and those are the terms someone wants you to think in.  (shaping the minds of young adults)  we all heard the mass programming slogans.

While they can use the term abstract term dimension to conceptualize via a 2d world it does not directly translate to 3d physical reality.

In the world of graphite scrapings on paper you have in effect combinations of 2(d) representative dimensions, however in the 3 d world you have objects.

A sphere en masse cannot exist in that/it's form in 2d, but only in a 3d world and we do know that a sphere is real do we not?

That is to say that the 2d world can and is used to represent the 3d world and is or can be for all intents and purposes mass-less abstract constructs. 





Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 9:08:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

However what I have gleaned from all sources is that this theory that the entire universe exists in two dimensions obviously implies that the third dimesion is only percieved, at least that's what my logic tells me. however the theory supports instantaneous communication and travel beyond the speed of light, by far in fact.

I know the difference between a work of fiction and reality, but if one knows anything on the subject they might get the impression that the author knew what the hell he was writing about. The fictional or real, I really can't take it to fruition because I simply don't know enough. But I have never bought into the theory that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Yes I will agree that in some ways it is an absolute, but nothing in any of the science I've seen has convinced me it is a limit. Simply put - why would it be ?

The fiction also says that there are ten layers or dimensions, whatever. I reject that because in my view, their number should be infinity, just like points on a line*. (* basic geometry wise)

And this is all ideas, I mean the real world when it comes to this esoteric stuff in science. Disagree ? Well I'll have a pizza with quarks and neutrinos, and double antiprotons. So you shouldn't pooh pooh me because I mentioned fiction.

T


The problem is that these guys go into lala land when they theorize and grasp for definition to distinguish the terms and objects etc.

What they are doing is throwing vectors, functions and even whole systems at a problem and calling them dimensions which is not in violation of grammar but neither is it proper in a sense that it allows a person to directly relate to the operation.

If we take a sphere and slice it we have 2 sections, rotate it 90deg right and slice it again 4 sections and rotate it 90deg up and slice it yields 8 sections. 

One could argue that you have an octant section of 3d space rotated 90Deg then flip it upside down and do the same to give us 8.

Once 8 are reached there simply are no more to be had.

complex numbers consist of a real and imaginary force or phase vector which shows up in another octant and the only reason we need vectors is to properly account for the interactive relationships between to real somethings.  (thus being able to predict the effects of stimuli etc)

What they are doing in effect is labeling each complex vector pair or function or system as a dimension.

If you are a draftsman and you dimension a floor plan you put measurements to it.  No one ever explains the root meanings of the words being used and its core meaning is left to ones imagination.

That is all they are doing, and of course the dreamers put parallel universes and time travel and a host of frankly loony crapola that they attach to the word "dimension" as a result of their failure to make that distinction.

space-time is my favorite

I guess that would make acceleration earth-time.

In my wildest imagination I cannot envision more than 8 (octants) where 4 are for all intents and purposes redundant, as a subset to describe anything in the 3d world.

That said when variables, functions, and systems are termed nad treated as dimensions as you said the number of dimensions they can have is infinite.

That sort of shows the big hulabaloo of the discovery of a new "dimension" for what it really is without all the dreamer drama.

I think people lose sight of the fact that math is only an attempt to explain and understand with predictability the real world with the use of fictional representative constructs.









SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 1:38:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
If we take a sphere and slice it we have 2 sections, rotate it 90deg right and slice it again 4 sections and rotate it 90deg up and slice it yields 8 sections.

One could argue that you have an octant section of 3d space rotated 90Deg then flip it upside down and do the same to give us 8.
Once 8 are reached there simply are no more to be had.

I can see you've never eaten a Terry's chocolate orange.



Termyn8or -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 1:58:24 PM)

It's hard to get on the same page taling about this theoretical stuff. The author I mentioned did have some background, but that doesn't mean his imagination cracked the whole thing wide open. But really, talk about particles and the like, there is physical evidence. When you get to this type of topic, it is all speculation or imagination.

My contention of an infinite number of universes was well considered IMO, and the way I see it is like an inch on a measuring device. There is an inch, but then there are halves, quarters, eiths, sixteenth, in fact I can measure something down to 1/10,000 of an inch, and that is nowhere near state of the art or even special.

You use the sphere for an illustrative purpose, but either the inch or the ball, we can't say that anything like we know in the way of physics actually applies. The way I see it is when a real, finite difinitive number exists, there is a reason. And I simply don't see the reason for a reason. If ten why not a thousand, a million or even a googal of them ?

Where I diverge from using a physical example stems from i.e. how many times can you cut a stick of butter ? Let's just apply a different parameter, the wavelength of light. If one light is say 780 Anstroms and another is 781, it is illogical to assume that there cannot be 781.01, 781.02, and so forth. So why not 780.0000000000000000000000000000000000009 ? In the purely physical realm, really you get to the point where you onlpy have one atom left in a slice or portion of the whole. I say that this rule does not apply to this form of reasoning.

T



Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 4:11:03 PM)



this is what I am talking about




[image]local://upfiles/59055/7FB64F2B8D5646B2BF0EE8F9FB02FCB8.gif[/image]



MasterNJ20 -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 7:04:04 PM)

Your image is 3D space. X, Y, and Z axis, positive or negative, make 3.

8, 10, 11, or any other dimensions require either more axis or another representation.


My example of 2D was simply because we can imagine both 2D and 3D settings.

M and string theory (M theory being a form of string theory) rely on manifolded small strings. These folds are considered physical dimensions because they should (in theory) breach our own physical limitations. They should act differently and fold within themselves in such a way to make 3D definitions impossible.




Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/7/2010 11:24:37 PM)



well I suppose we may have to agree to disagree since we are both coming from a subjective stance on the matter.  dimensions are nothing more than added variables regardless if they want to call it dimensions or universes or whatever.

Just for kicks I went onto bootoob thinking for sure that there must be soemthing on there and sure enough.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

this vid shows how out in lala land these guys are.  Thats not to say they are wrong about some of the resultant conclusions of the subatomic world etc though I am surprised if they ever get beyond the "imagine" stage with this.

the key here is the word they use is "imagine", I dont do that very well.

I will stick to the tesla world and from what I have seen so far with meyls unification work which is based on teslas work my vote is for myle.





DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 1:11:53 AM)

Two dimensions is too many.

Try 1.

That's all you need to start - one infinity, or call it 'transfinity', extending along one axis, with a signal variance with repeating but variable characteristics that interact.

All other dimensions can be 'created' from abstracting away from the base axis and defining your directions in terms of the signal interactions.

Of course, the more dimensions you 'create' from this, the slower your perception of cause-and-effect would be compared to the baseline action, but... you'd be on that level of abstraction as the observer, and it would be impossible for you to notice except by discovering the vibration period and deducing the baseline from that.

Yes, transfinity is a word, and no, it's not pseudoscience. It's a math term. I'd have to google it to tell you who came up with it, because I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm thinking Mandelbrot.

Edit: Fuck. Nope, it was Cantor. Pssh. I fail set theory... I thought I was better than that.



DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 1:21:09 AM)

Anyway, my original point is that while 2nd, 3rd, etc. dimensions may be 'virtual' in the sense that they stem from interactions along one axis, they are not "holographic". Any more than a database is only "really" three-dimensional, try convincing the guys running the fucking Google index that it's only got 3 dimensions to it.

The universe is data. It works like data. The laws of thermodynamics only work because of entropy, which is a fundamental characteristic of data, not of mass or energy. It's not complicated. An experiment like this is kind of behind the curve on quantum theory.

Though it's these simple tests of assumptions that make for some of the best new discoveries, so I'm all for it. Go them.

Edit: Tho on reading the link a bit, I think they need a better grounding in current theory, or a better mathematician on their team... I like the idea of the test they want to do, but I don't like their starting assumptions. They'll mess up any conclusions they draw from the data that way.

Edit 2: Also, string theory blows chunks. How are respected academics still doing that shit? I thought it got blown out of the water last decade.



DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 2:04:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
The way I see it is when a real, finite difinitive number exists, there is a reason. And I simply don't see the reason for a reason. If ten why not a thousand, a million or even a googal of them ?


The reason is sorting & 'finding' things.

imagine 100 objects. If you want to find, say, object #50, you have to take at least 50 steps along one axis in a piece-by-piece evaluation.

If you have a 2-dimensional table, 5 rows and 10 columns each, it's now only 5+10 steps to walk.

In 3 dimensions, 5x5x2, each 'grid' carrying only 10 objects, it's now a maximum of 12 steps to take to get to item number 50. Depending on how you arrange your 3-dimensional grid, it can be less.

There are algorithms that can make this selection faster, but it could be argued that they 'add' a dimension (or more) to do their magic.

Three dimensions probably allow the most efficient baseline for a host of fundamental sorting and selecting interactions that, collectively, create our physical reality. But 3 is no magic number; there are more informational dimensions that affect our lives every day. Money is a good example of a dimension we don't see as 'real', but can make changes on a level not explainable by base physics without a LOT of math & minute levels of observation. We just don't instinctively perceive these interactions as 'physical', and so our understanding of the way the universe works is all derivative from what we do instinctively process.



DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 2:59:14 AM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The problem is that these guys go into lala land when they theorize and grasp for definition to distinguish the terms and objects etc.


Yep.

Also, I want to say that on reading your posts, you've got some heavy shit by its tail, stuff I don't normally find people understand. Kudos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
If we take a sphere and slice it we have 2 sections, rotate it 90deg right and slice it again 4 sections and rotate it 90deg up and slice it yields 8 sections. 

One could argue that you have an octant section of 3d space rotated 90Deg then flip it upside down and do the same to give us 8.

Once 8 are reached there simply are no more to be had.


This is not entirely true. For base symmetry operations, yes, three dimensions are about all you can squeeze from a model sphere.

However, the space can have infinitely descending and ascending dimensions.

If you treated each individual octant as a unique object and drew 3-directional maps on them similar to the procedure used to create them, then correlated the 'sub' octants with each other with some kind of trait or index, you would now have 6 dimensions, not 3. Similarly, if you took the entire grouping and assigned it to an axis along which other identical mappings took place, you'd now have 7 dimensions.

The sphere would now have the traits of an object existing in 7-dimensional space, even though it hasn't changed; and even though no efficiency in modeling that sphere has been gained.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
complex numbers consist of a real and imaginary force or phase vector which shows up in another octant and the only reason we need vectors is to properly account for the interactive relationships between to real somethings.  (thus being able to predict the effects of stimuli etc)


Numbers don't consist of forces. I understand what you're driving at, but your explanation is breaking down here... You're trying to explain how additional dimensions might add efficiency to a model. As I just explained, they don't need to; we just limit them out of convenience. The dimensions themselves continue to exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
space-time is my favorite

I guess that would make acceleration earth-time.


No it wouldn't. Also, your sense of humor needs work.

Space-time's cool, bro. But paradox is where It's At, fo sho mah nigga.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I think people lose sight of the fact that math is only an attempt to explain and understand with predictability the real world with the use of fictional representative constructs.


Because everything we understand about the real world is from representational constructs, 'math' is just symbolic logic that does the same thing language does but with more precision; and there's some math out there that explains the limits of where 'real' and 'representational' collide. That math is cupping in its gnarled hands the entirety of quantum physics. Shit breaks down when you realize the observer effect happens with the math, too. But you have ta get real fuckin' meta to get to that point. hehe, now that is trippy shit if you think about it too long.



Real0ne -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 3:40:02 PM)


the way I see it I have no problem with an infinite number of subsets in the xyz.  The sphere can only exist in xyz and no where else.  The remaining axis are only for vector plotting.  Now you can have any number of spheres and even the whole universe all mapped in xyz and their associated vectors mapped in the other octants.

I suppose one could turn xyz into a full cube and run what they would call 6 dimension but I dont really see any advantage to that.

I see no reason why the universe would not be processable in one xyz or worst case 1 cubed xyz coordinate system and go from there.

In some ways I can see it being easier and others more difficult but no one has yet to point out why with exception to we aint figgered it out yet that it cannot be done that way.

Granted I realize it would take a chalk board that went around the whole county to map it all out but the universe is one huge interacting organism wherein one action effects another.

Oh and I dont believe for one second there was ever a big bang either.  If we are expanding somewhere else is contracting.  (that puts us on the safe side of the universe anyway)  LOL



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 4:54:51 PM)

hijacked by the insane

[/thread]



DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 6:11:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the way I see it I have no problem with an infinite number of subsets in the xyz.


Not subsets, fluffy. Dimensions. 'descending' dimensions, but thinking of them as subsets does bad things to the reality of the situation. In a 'descending' dimension, if you crossed from v1 in octant xyz to v1 in octant -x-y-z, it'd be one step. From the perspective of the 3-dimensional passenger on the trip, you'd just jump from one octant to another without passing any of the space in between. (from an outside 3-dimensional observer's perspective, the transit would be... different.) There is a huge difference.

However, to have a '4th' dimension, there has to be signal transference in between the space in such a way that it's inviolable. Time during the transit would seem like nothing to the passenger, but from the perspective of the baser dimension, it would follow the path of the carrier signal. Kind of like how a phone conversation works; you're talking on the phone, even though your conversational partner is miles away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The sphere can only exist in xyz and no where else. 


Ok, no. WRONG. symmetry operations can only be done in the xyz, but it still exists in an arbitrary number of dimensions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I suppose one could turn xyz into a full cube and run what they would call 6 dimension but I dont really see any advantage to that.


RIGHT. There is none. Without the ability to use symmetry to cut down on wasted data, there's no efficiency gain in more than 3-dimensional indexing. Regardless, at some point the universe applies more dimensions to that sphere, when it is subject to interactions along that axis. So the additional dimensions always exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I see no reason why the universe would not be processable in one xyz or worst case 1 cubed xyz coordinate system and go from there.


Then you don't know data. Build a complex database with multiple indexes and foreign keys, and you'll grok the whole multidimensional thing.



DMFParadox -> RE: Holographic Universe? (11/8/2010 6:12:32 PM)

dp



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02