Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?

[colton]

Are you familiar the double slit experiment, and the quantum wave function?


Just curious if anyone else follows Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

Yes, that's what I do for a living.

The stuff is really mind blowing and interesting.

Glad you agree.

 

[colton]

Learning about this in physics right now! I'll be getting my bachelors in physics and PhD in astrophysics. So hopefully I'm at the forefront of studying this kind of stuff.

Cool! But actually astrophysics doesn't typically use much quantum mechanics. Well, depends a lot on the type of astrophysics, anyway.

Good luck with your degree plans. I realize you're just starting out in your undergrad program, so you may well change your mind before it comes to grad school, but let me give you my universal advice for anyone considering a PhD: be aware that getting a PhD takes a VERY LONG TIME. For physicists, the average time is 6 -6.5 years after a bachelor's degree. And then, depending on what job you're trying to get, there's a 2-3 year "post doc". And things are highly competitive all along the way. So I tell students to not even start unless you are certain that's what you REALLY want to do--whether it's because of the career you want, or because you just can't help wanting to learn more.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Cool! But actually astrophysics doesn't typically use much quantum mechanics. Well, depends a lot on the type of astrophysics, anyway.

Good luck with your degree plans. I realize you're just starting out in your undergrad program, so you may well change your mind before it comes to grad school, but let me give you my universal advice for anyone considering a PhD: be aware that getting a PhD takes a VERY LONG TIME. For physicists, the average time is 6 -6.5 years after a bachelor's degree. And then, depending on what job you're trying to get, there's a 2-3 year "post doc". And things are highly competitive all along the way. So I tell students to not even start unless you are certain that's what you REALLY want to do--whether it's because of the career you want, or because you just can't help wanting to learn more.

To echo these sentiments, I would suggest getting involved as a volunteer, or a summer-student in an astrophysics lab, or any physics lab in general. You'll be working with post-docs, PhD students, people who already have their PhDs (and maybe are tenured professors)-- and get some great insight as to what their job is really like.


I really thought I was going to go for getting a PhD in either Genetics, or Cell Biology in the beginning of my undergrad. I now have been involved with a Prostate Cancer research lab (also a really cool field of science, I must say) for about a year and a half-- and I've realized that I strongly dislike it. I really enjoy some aspects of research, but I am far too restless for the meat and potatoes of it. It takes a lot of skills that don't really match my skill set, so I decided to set my sights elsewhere.



Tl;dr Had I not volunteered, and been a summer-student in a research lab, it would have taken my 6+ years of schooling to ever enter a lab-- only to realize that I hate it, and determine that I'm better off changing career plans.

So try and email a prof in your area running a physics lab, and ask him if you can get involved in it in some sort of way.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This thread is entirely fascinating in an I-don't-get-it kinda way.

Keep it up.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Cool! But actually astrophysics doesn't typically use much quantum mechanics. Well, depends a lot on the type of astrophysics, anyway.

Good luck with your degree plans. I realize you're just starting out in your undergrad program, so you may well change your mind before it comes to grad school, but let me give you my universal advice for anyone considering a PhD: be aware that getting a PhD takes a VERY LONG TIME. For physicists, the average time is 6 -6.5 years after a bachelor's degree. And then, depending on what job you're trying to get, there's a 2-3 year "post doc". And things are highly competitive all along the way. So I tell students to not even start unless you are certain that's what you REALLY want to do--whether it's because of the career you want, or because you just can't help wanting to learn more.

To echo these sentiments, I would suggest getting involved as a volunteer, or a summer-student in an astrophysics lab, or any physics lab in general. You'll be working with post-docs, PhD students, people who already have their PhDs (and maybe are tenured professors)-- and get some great insight as to what their job is really like.


I really thought I was going to go for getting a PhD in either Genetics, or Cell Biology in the beginning of my undergrad. I now have been involved with a Prostate Cancer research lab (also a really cool field of science, I must say) for about a year and a half-- and I've realized that I strongly dislike it. I really enjoy some aspects of research, but I am far too restless for the meat and potatoes of it. It takes a lot of skills that don't really match my skill set, so I decided to set my sights elsewhere.



Tl;dr Had I not volunteered, and been a summer-student in a research lab, it would have taken my 6+ years of schooling to ever enter a lab-- only to realize that I hate it, and determine that I'm better off changing career plans.

So try and email a prof in your area running a physics lab, and ask him if you can get involved in it in some sort of way.

Thanks for the advice guys. I have not had a lot of 'movie moments' such as looking across the room and locking eyes with my soulmate, or some bull crap like that. But in second grade my teacher read us a book about the planets of the solar system. And I just thought it was the coolest thing. Ever since then I have loved to learn about all things space. So at the moment I am absolutely sure this is what I want to do. Dala, I will definitely be checking out some internships (already have been looking into it.).

I pretty much love everything that has to do with science. I think biology (mainly zoology and evolution study) would be my second choice. But figuring out how and why things do what they do is my favorite, so physics it is. After that who knows. But Astronomy is definitely #1 on my list as of now.

 

[Siro]

Personally I think the multiverse explanation is exceedingly lame. It takes away our freedom of choice and the consequences of actions, which I firmly believe in--both for religious reasons as well as from the evidence of my own experience.

I personally am very skeptical of the existence of free will, and thus I'm not disturbed by the implication of the many-worlds hypothesis. However, personal feelings have nothing to do with whether something is true. We either live in a multiverse, or we don't. Nothing can change that.

Conversely, there's absolutely no evidence for a multiverse. There's also no current evidence for, say, string theory--but string theory at least holds the promise of one day being able to produce verifiable or falsifiable predictions. The multiverse theory does not. In my opinion it's not science, it's philosophy.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

Okay, I'll present my own mini-rant in response, but remember that I'm also playing the devil's advocate on some level. I think the multiverse is a great explanation of QM, but It may turn out not to be true.

Since the Enlightenment, science has been seen as the pursuit to understand the universe's true nature. But with QM, physics suddenly became only a mathematical tool used to predict outcomes of experiments. It has nothing to do with physical reality at all! And why? Just because QM resists falsifiable interpretations by its nature, we are supposed to accept that no interpretation of that bizarre world is needed. Just shut up and calculate! Screw that.

I think it's perfectly scientific to pick the most correct theory based on its explanatory power compared to other available theories. The multiverse offers the best explanation for why things behave in that strange way in quantum physics. MWI (many worlds interpretation) is the most direct way of understanding Schrodinger's Equation since the equation is ALWAYS satisfied. No collapse upon observation, just decoherence due to interaction with the environment in one instance, but the function maintains its coherence on a global level. Brilliant! MWI also resolves ALL the correlation paradoxes present in QM. What other interpretation can do that?

A more practical example that challenges mainstream QM thinking (like Copenhagen Interpretation) is quantum computers. A classical computer will take a very long time to factorise a product of two large prime numbers. A quantum computer will do it in no time. How can that be explained without a perfectly causal physical mechanism predicating the outcome of quantum observations? We can use such examples to weigh different interpretation's explanatory powers. And MWI emerges as the best interpretation. So it is reasonable to at least consider it to be probably true.

 

[LogGrad98]

By holographic do you mean like the matrix, where we are really people, just not existing where we think we do? Or do you mean that this is all fake, that there is no reality, and it is all just some movie some aliens somewhere are watching, or similar? This is not really a physics question but a philosophical one. You could even argue that string theory, particle/wave theory, etc. all show that this world isn't really real, as the most basic constructs appear to have no real concretely definable form. Do we exist? Can we prove it? If so, why? Is it possible I exist and you don't? Does thinking really equate to existing? All the most basic question of philosophers throughout the ages.

 

[LogGrad98]

Personally I think the multiverse explanation is exceedingly lame. It takes away our freedom of choice and the consequences of actions, which I firmly believe in--both for religious reasons as well as from the evidence of my own experience. Conversely, there's absolutely no evidence for a multiverse. There's also no current evidence for, say, string theory--but string theory at least holds the promise of one day being able to produce verifiable or falsifiable predictions. The multiverse theory does not. In my opinion it's not science, it's philosophy.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

While I agree it is a philosophical question, I do not in any way think that it absolves us of personal accountability in THIS, our universe. And I do not entirely discount the idea of multiple universes, in fact the fringe aspects of the LDS faith more or less confirms there are multiple universes.

To wit, this is "our" God's universe, but we know that God was once as we are, and as God is we may become, so would that be in this universe or some other? I would posit that it makes more sense for it to occur in a different universe entirely, as it has already been established that our God has "worlds without number" in this universe, it would begin to get crowded if everyone who achieves Godhood merely continues in this self-same universes where our God already rules worlds without number.

And in that light, it isn't such a big stretch to imagine that there is some connections between the universes. I don't even think it is a gigantic stretch to imagine each of us living a separate life in another universe, and then at some cosmic point in the eternal continuum all of our "selves" get rolled back into one, with lifetimes worth of experiences preparing us to rule over our own universe in kind.

n fact, to me that kind of resolves a concern I have always had in the back of my mind concerning a loving God, who supposedly loves his children but who, by his own scripture and representatives here on earth, more or less is condemning the vast majority of these children to less than they could potentially achieve. What percentage of his children will reach the highest glory in the celestial kingdom? From my understanding that is, even by design, a very very small number, and how could he truly bask in the eternal glory of eternal progression knowing that billions upon billions of his children will be in essence cut off from his presence? How happy would it make you if even 1 of your say 3 or 4 kids would never have anything to do with you again in their lives? Could it be a multiverse construct that provides far more of us the chance to progress as God intended? I figure, why not?

But, as has been stated, this is a philosophical discussion far more than a physics one.

 

[addictionary]

Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?

No.

 

[addictionary]

No.

No.

 

[addictionary]

No.

See? Everything's possibru.

 

[colton]

I personally am very skeptical of the existence of free will, and thus I'm not disturbed by the implication of the many-worlds hypothesis. However, personal feelings have nothing to do with whether something is true. We either live in a multiverse, or we don't. Nothing can change that.



Okay, I'll present my own mini-rant in response, but remember that I'm also playing the devil's advocate on some level. I think the multiverse is a great explanation of QM, but It may turn out not to be true.

Since the Enlightenment, science has been seen as the pursuit to understand the universe's true nature. But with QM, physics suddenly became only a mathematical tool used to predict outcomes of experiments. It has nothing to do with physical reality at all! And why? Just because QM resists falsifiable interpretations by its nature, we are supposed to accept that no interpretation of that bizarre world is needed. Just shut up and calculate! Screw that.

I think it's perfectly scientific to pick the most correct theory based on its explanatory power compared to other available theories. The multiverse offers the best explanation for why things behave in that strange way in quantum physics. MWI (many worlds interpretation) is the most direct way of understanding Schrodinger's Equation since the equation is ALWAYS satisfied. No collapse upon observation, just decoherence due to interaction with the environment in one instance, but the function maintains its coherence on a global level. Brilliant! MWI also resolves ALL the correlation paradoxes present in QM. What other interpretation can do that?

A more practical example that challenges mainstream QM thinking (like Copenhagen Interpretation) is quantum computers. A classical computer will take a very long time to factorise a product of two large prime numbers. A quantum computer will do it in no time. How can that be explained without a perfectly causal physical mechanism predicating the outcome of quantum observations? We can use such examples to weigh different interpretation's explanatory powers. And MWI emerges as the best interpretation. So it is reasonable to at least consider it to be probably true.

I don't understand why you are so hung up on the collapse of the wavefunction. There's nothing mystical about it, and I don't see any paradoxes. It's just that when quantum objects interact with other objects then they can either (a) entangle, or (b) not entangle.* And if they don't entangle, then they interact via one of their eigenstates. We don't need any "everything that can possibly happen does happen" explanation. Especially one that has the HUGE corollary that free will doesn't exist. YOU might not believe in free will, but it serves as the basis for (among other things) our entire criminal legal system. I don't think a judge will possibly buy an argument that goes "sorry, but in an alternate universe I didn't shoot the guy".

And quantum computers do not at all violate mainstream QM thinking at all. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with that paragraph. And for what it's worth I've been doing quantum computing research since Jan 2000 (spin properties of electrons in semiconductors) and have attended literally hundreds of talks on the quantum computing over the past 13 years.


* Later edit - Actually, I remember reading an article (Physics Today?) that discussed wavefunction collapse and made the compelling case that the collapse of the wavefunction is an artifact of limiting the scope of what you are describing mathematically. If the QM system includes what's doing the "measuring" then there is no wavefunction collapse. So any theory that exists solely to explain wavefunction collapses is completely unnecessary, in my opinion.

 

[♪alt13]

I am an interested layman and am probably incapable of having a truly intelligent conversation on the subject. A few years back I read a book that did a good job of explaining the different interpretations of this. Through the years as I have thought about it the conceptual view that I have sounds like what colton was getting at.

My problem with the many worlds theory is that it assumes the existence of a lot of **** we may never be able to measure. This doesn't mean it's definitely wrong or that I would dismiss it just that it does sound highly unlikely. As far as the observer causing the wave to become a particle simply through observing it I am reminded of the allegory of the cave(book vii Platos Republic).


This here link is to a radio show that I ♥, although it isn't directly speaking about this subject it does talk about order from chaos and is very entertaining.

Radio Lab is awesomehttps://www.radiolab.org/story/91684-stochasticity/

 

[Siro]

I don't understand why you are so hung up on the collapse of the wavefunction. There's nothing mystical about it, and I don't see any paradoxes. It's just that when quantum objects interact with other objects then they can either (a) entangle, or (b) not entangle.* And if they don't entangle, then they interact via one of their eigenstates. We don't need any "everything that can possibly happen does happen" explanation. Especially one that has the HUGE corollary that free will doesn't exist. YOU might not believe in free will, but it serves as the basis for (among other things) our entire criminal legal system. I don't think a judge will possibly buy an argument that goes "sorry, but in an alternate universe I didn't shoot the guy".

And quantum computers do not at all violate mainstream QM thinking at all. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with that paragraph. And for what it's worth I've been doing quantum computing research since Jan 2000 (spin properties of electrons in semiconductors) and have attended literally hundreds of talks on the quantum computing over the past 13 years.


* Later edit - Actually, I remember reading an article (Physics Today?) that discussed wavefunction collapse and made the compelling case that the collapse of the wavefunction is an artifact of limiting the scope of what you are describing mathematically. If the QM system includes what's doing the "measuring" then there is no wavefunction collapse. So any theory that exists solely to explain wavefunction collapses is completely unnecessary, in my opinion.

I have to post quickly because I want to watch the game.

An object's wavefunction exists in a superposition of eigenstates until a measurement causes the function to collapse to a single value. The process is irreducible and indeterministic in mainstream QM! In other words, you're saying that you have a mathematical model that can describe what you observe. But you say nothing whatsoever about what is happening in physical reality. That is the problem that MWI remedies.

 

[Siro]

I also wanted to comment on the issue of free will that you keep bringing up. First, I don't "believe" anything. I'm skeptical of free will as I don't see how it can be possible, scientifically speaking. And that's that. Secondly, and more importantly, what does free will have to do with what we're talking about? The more agnostic approach of QM offers no more support for the idea of free will than MWI does. The laws of physics are precisely the same in both frameworks. WMI simply offers and explanation of what we see. But what we see says nothing about free will. So I don't understand why you keep speaking as if adopting a certain interpretation of QM would somehow turn society on its head.

Laws may depend on the idea of free will, but free will itself is based on inherit human traits like the possession of a theory of mind. You're acting like a judge sentences a criminal because he thinks the criminal committed the crime in all possible universes... That obviously isn't the case. However, if free will does indeed turn out to be an illusion, then we must adjust our behavior to take into account this new knowledge. I don't know if such conclusions would require us to re-evaluate our laws and mores or not, but solutions based on objective factual knowledge are always better than the alternative.

 

[colton]

Secondly, and more importantly, what does free will have to do with what we're talking about? The more agnostic approach of QM offers no more support for the idea of free will than MWI does. The laws of physics are precisely the same in both frameworks. WMI simply offers and explanation of what we see. But what we see says nothing about free will. So I don't understand why you keep speaking as if adopting a certain interpretation of QM would somehow turn society on its head.

Maybe things have changed since I last read about it, but I believe many worlds says that when a choice is made, BOTH outcomes happen. One in our universe, and one in an alternate universe that spins off from us. Thus there ARE no real choices, there is only the randomness of which universe we happen to end up in.

You're acting like a judge sentences a criminal because he thinks the criminal committed the crime in all possible universes...

No, just the opposite. I'm saying the criminal did NOT commit the crime in all possible universes. So, if a criminal only committed the crime in our universe because of the randomness of which universe we happen to be in, and didn't commit it in an alternate universe, then how is it just to punish him for that act?

 

[One Brow]

Maybe things have changed since I last read about it, but I believe many worlds says that when a choice is made, BOTH outcomes happen.

Only if the result of the choice is random in some nature, right?

 

[Siro]

Maybe things have changed since I last read about it, but I believe many worlds says that when a choice is made, BOTH outcomes happen. One in our universe, and one in an alternate universe that spins off from us. Thus there ARE no real choices, there is only the randomness of which universe we happen to end up in.



No, just the opposite. I'm saying the criminal did NOT commit the crime in all possible universes. So, if a criminal only committed the crime in our universe because of the randomness of which universe we happen to be in, and didn't commit it in an alternate universe, then how is it just to punish him for that act?

Let's say free will is a real phenomenon with a rational materialist explanation, how does mainstream QM explain it? How exactly does that random and probabilistic nature of particles lend support to the idea that you're making specific and controlled choices? Are you saying that you take comfort in the fact mainstream QM forgoes explanation, thus giving you hope of that free will can be hiding in the mist of the unknown? Come on now. Or do you believe that free choice is immaterial and mystical? In that case, I don't see why MWI would challenge that perspective.

Free will actually works better in the multiverse. Every time you make a choice, other versions make the same or different choices. You choose to go with strawberry ice-cream, other versions of you go with chocolate, others pick strawberry as well, and some decide they don't need the calories. The choices don't have to occur with equal probability, which means a sort of selection will go on. Those who make the better choice will reap the rewards of such choice, and those who don't won't. Each good choice will put you in a better position to make another good choice in the future, increasing the stacks of you that made good choices. Taking an individual and looking at all the choices that unfolded throughout their lives, there will be timelines where the individual did well and lived a rich and productive life, and others where the choices had a negative effect on his well-being. So you can look at the "good" timeline and define those choice as the right ones! And since wavefunction decoherence in MWI is not random, we have a good objective definition of free will, which is something interpretation-free QM can't accomplish.

 

[LogGrad98]

There is an argument to be made that given the molecular structure of an individual brain, and the differences from other brains, and the differences in environment and situation that each brain is placed in, that every choice is determinable if you could perfectly understand all variables associated with thought, both biological and environmental. In other words, I think you could make an argument that free will really does not exist and is merely the output of a very very complex program running on hyper-complex computational equipment, and if you could understand all those variables you could within a very tight tolerance predict future decisions that an individual would make.

 

[Siro]

There is an argument to be made that given the molecular structure of an individual brain, and the differences from other brains, and the differences in environment and situation that each brain is placed in, that every choice is determinable if you could perfectly understand all variables associated with thought, both biological and environmental. In other words, I think you could make an argument that free will really does not exist and is merely the output of a very very complex program running on hyper-complex computational equipment, and if you could understand all those variables you could within a very tight tolerance predict future decisions that an individual would make.

That is very reasonable, and I have no problem with that. But none of it relates to which QM interpretation is best, like I've been saying. What you describe is precisely how I see free will, a practical construct that is the product of the incredible complexity of the human brain, and the numerous environmental variables that affects its evolution. Nothing is "free". It just looks that way.