I've never understood why proof that the universe is "holographic" (= 2+1 dimensions of information projected as 3+1) does not fall out of the Schrödinger’s/Maxwell’s field equations.<p>After all, the equations, <i>by their very nature as equations</i>, constrain the dimensionality of possible universes (field configurations) by one, from 4 down to 3. The fourth is always derivable from the other three (e.g., X-Y-Z intial conditions at T=0 define X-Y-Z-T fields for all T).<p>To believe that the universe contains four dimensions of information (i.e., is not a hologram), would imply that the field equations do not universally hold. So what this experiment is actually testing is the truth of QED, which implies holography.<p>Does anyone know why this is not so? (I tried asking a while ago on Physics StackExchange and only got flippant responses.)<p>(As an analogy for CS types: consider the game of Life. It is 3-dimensional (2 space + 1 time), but constrained by the Life equation. So it cannot contain three dimensions full of arbitrary information; only a two-dimensional slice can be arbitrarily instantiated. The analogy is not perfect, as Life is neither reversible nor fully observable from any 2D slice, but it is close.)
The FAQ is very good. I wish the experimental section went into a discussion of error sources. There may be unexpected error sources which are just as interesting as the signal they're searching for (gravitational waves, who knows)<p>As one example of an error source, I can predict this thing would make a beast of a seismometer. Which in itself is interesting.<p><a href="http://holometer.fnal.gov/faq.html#experiment" rel="nofollow">http://holometer.fnal.gov/faq.html#experiment</a>
There's also a theory that our universe is a 3-D hologram that was spawned from a black hole in a 4-D universe [1]. Would there be any way to test this theory as well?<p>[1] <a href="http://gizmodo.com/our-universe-might-just-be-fourth-dimensional-black-hol-1410271260" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/our-universe-might-just-be-fourth-dimensi...</a>
here is a related lecture:
"Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram":
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY</a>
I'm very excited about this experiment. Even if it completely fails, we're bound to learn something interesting. Spacetime fluctuations haven't been examined at this level before, so anything they find out is new.
Someone educate me. Isn't this farcical at the core? If we are living in a hologram, then why is our world visible inside of structures, even when devoid of light (eg: buildings, dark tunnels, etc).
I really enjoyed reading "The holographic universe" (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062014102" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062014102</a>) some time ago but how can an experiment which is entirely based on science, physical laws, empirical evidences and so on, prove something which would make all these means... meaningless. This looks like a paradox to me.
reminded me of this Michael Talbot interview, author of "The Holographic Universe": <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgYz_BU2Ew" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgYz_BU2Ew</a><p>Sadly, Mr. Talbot died in 1992, six months after this interview.
The article is from 2013, this is the latest: <a href="http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2014/searching-for-the-holographic-universe" rel="nofollow">http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2014/searching...</a><p>Holometer site: <a href="http://holometer.fnal.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://holometer.fnal.gov/</a>
Seems to be a bit dangerous experiment. I remember reading something in some kind of a manual that it is definitely dangerous to put to much information in one place. It gets hungry for more information and then things get complicated pretty quickly.