Why do some scientists believe that our universe is a hologram?


Today I want to tell you why some scientists
believe that our universe is really a 3-dimensional projection of a 2-dimensional space. They call it the “holographic principle”
and the key idea is this. Usually, the number of different things you
can imagine happening inside a part of space increases with the volume. Think of a bag of particles. The larger the bag, the more particles, and
the more details you need to describe what the particles do. These details that you need to describe what
happens are what physicists call the “degrees of freedom,” and the number of these degrees
of freedom is proportional to the number of particles, which is proportional to the volume. At least that’s how it normally works. The holographic principle now says
that you can describe what happens inside the bag by encoding it on the surface of that
bag, at the same resolution. This may not sounds all that remarkable, but
it is. Here is why. Take a cube that’s made of smaller cubes,
each of which is either black or white. You can think of each small cube as a single
bit of information. How much information is in the large cube? Well, that’s the number of the smaller cubes,
so 3 cube in this example. Or, if you divide every side of the large
cube into N pieces instead of three, that’s N cube. But if you instead count the surface elements
of the cube, at the same resolution, you have only 6 x N square. This means that for large N, there are many
more volume bits than surface bits at the same resolution. The holographic principle now says that even
though there are so many fewer surface bits, the surface bits are sufficient to describe
everything that happens in the volume. This does not mean that the surface bits correspond
to certain regions of volume, it’s somewhat more complicated. It means instead that the surface bits describe certain correlations between the pieces of volume. So if you think again of the particles in
the bag, these will not move entirely independently. And that’s what is called the holographic
principle, that really you can encode the events inside any volume on the surface of
the volume, at the same resolution. But, you may say, how come we never notice
that particles in a bag are somehow constrained in their freedom? Good question. The reason is that the stuff that we deal
with in every-day life, say, that bag of particles, doesn’t remotely make use of the theoretically
available degrees of freedom. Our present observations only test situations
well below the limit that the holographic principle says should exist. The limit from the holographic principle really
only matters if the degrees of freedom are strongly compressed, as is the case, for example,
for stuff that collapses to a black hole. Indeed, the physics of black holes is one
of the most important clues that physicists have for the holographic principle. That’s because we know that black holes
have an entropy that is proportional to the area of the black hole horizon, not to its
volume. That’s the important part: black hole entropy
is proportional to the area, not to the volume of the black hole. Now, in thermodynamics entropy counts the
number of different microscopic configurations that have the same macroscopic appearance. So, the entropy basically counts how much
information you could stuff into a macroscopic thing if you kept track of the microscopic
details. Therefore, the area-scaling of the black hole
entropy tells you that the information content of black holes is bounded by a quantity which is proportional
to the horizon area. This relation is the origin of the holographic principle. The other important clue for the holographic
principle comes from string theory. That’s because string theorists like to
apply their mathematical methods in a space-time with a negative cosmological constant, which
is called an Anti-de Sitter space. Most of them believe, though it has strictly
speaking never been proved, that gravity in an Anti-de Sitter space can be described by
a different theory that is entirely located on the boundary of that space. And while this idea came from string theory,
one does not actually need the strings for this relation between the volume and the surface
to work. More concretely, it uses a limit in which
the effects of the strings no longer appear. So the holographic principle seems to be more
general than string theory. I have to add though that we do not live in
an Anti-de Sitter space because, for all we currently know, the cosmological constant
in our universe is positive. Therefore it’s unclear how much the volume-surface
relation in Anti-De Sitter space tells us about the real world. And for what the black hole entropy is concerned,
the mathematics we currently have does not actually tell us that it counts the information
that one can stuff into a black hole. It may instead only count the information
that one loses by disconnecting the inside and outside of the black hole. This is called the “entanglement entropy”. It scales with the surface for many systems
other than black holes and there is nothing particularly holographic about it. Whether or not you buy the motivations for
the holographic principle, you may want to know whether we can test it. The answer is definitely maybe. Earlier this year, Erik Verlinde and Kathryn
Zurek proposed that we try to test the holographic principle using gravitational wave interferometers. The idea is that if the universe is holographic,
then the fluctuations in the two orthogonal directions that the interferometer arms extend
into would be more strongly correlated than one normally expects. However, not everyone agrees that the particular
realization of holography which Verlinde and Zurek use is the correct one. Personally I think that the motivations for
the holographic principle are not particularly strong and in any case we’ll not be able
to test this hypothesis in the coming centuries. Therefore writing papers about it is a waste
of time. But it’s an interesting idea and at least
you now know what physicists are talking about when they say the universe is a hologram.

100 Comments

  1. david wright said:

    Thanks, Sabine. that clears up several issues for me, that had been murky. Plus, I think some persons have made rather more enthusiastic claims about the holographic principle, than are warranted. You explain the need for caution.

    September 16, 2019
    Reply
  2. lamewarrior said:

    Well by God, there's nothing wrong with human imagination, that's for certain.

    September 16, 2019
    Reply
  3. GB Spence III said:

    Wow. You look especially beautiful in this video.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  4. John Farris said:

    👽 Periodic table 👽

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  5. Avni Erbey said:

    Your dress is nice. I am writting again and again whole science world, please forget fairytales and come back to facts because there are lots of problems in real world.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  6. Marshall Eubanks said:

    We do not live in an Anti de Sitter space.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  7. Gsup7s said:

    I concur. But. I'm not saying there aren't aspects of reality that do not demonstrate holographic functions. Because I think there are. But to understand the hologram specifically. It must be projected. And while you could say electron fields are that projection. Along with pretty much any other field. It is the interactions of these fields. That produce reality. So even if the holographic principle was correct. (Which it is not.) The theory. Does not match the function of the description. Or observations. However even if it is outright wrong. I'm not so sure if it's "a waste of time' trying to better comprehend the process of the holographic principle. As it also describes mini other functions of misunderstood hypotheses. Like preservation of information. Though it is not the only way information can be preserved. When dealing with regions of 100% density. Because according to reality. Infinity is purely a human concept.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  8. Brethren of Yeshua said:

    Our reality is being projected out in 3D from the Milky Way's 2D black hole because of time and expansion.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  9. Joel Bergeron said:

    I so wish we could have a beer. Theoretically it's possible! 😂

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  10. Dinar AndFriends said:

    Yet more mental masturbation. A structure for which there is no evidence forms the basis for a theory which makes no rational sense, and which exists purely in order to solve a problem which doesn't exist in the real world.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  11. TheJimSkipper said:

    It seems many physicists have no desire to describe the real world.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  12. 3m0_Wr3ck said:

    "Remember, Reality Is An Illusion, The Universe Is A Hologram Buy Gold Bye!!!!!" – Bill Cipher

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  13. subhabrata das said:

    What is a hyperrealistic dream 3D or 2D.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  14. chamras bamrongratt said:

    You're bringing the complicated scientific theories, especially Quantum physic down to earth. I'm learning a huge lot from your channel. All your generous efforts appreciated, a big thank to you.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  15. Reptoid said:

    This theory breaks my bastardization of thermodynamics, the universe tends toward simplicity.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  16. mjpottertx said:

    Because they have too much time on their hands? When I get a cut, I certainly don't bleed holographic blood. It is very real blood.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  17. Puke Witchwalker said:

    Throw away entropy, because everything IS ordered systems.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  18. Richard Duke said:

    So if the Universe is a hologram being projected on a 2d surface , who is operating the projector ?
    Are they projecting holograms on other 2d surfaces in the multiverse ?
    Are these out of phase projections in the multiverse all coming from one projector ?
    Is dark matter , the matter in other Universe of the multiverse, that is being projected as a hologram but slightly out of phase ?
    Just idle thoughts .

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  19. Allen Russell said:

    As a complete layman that is fascinated by the possibilities that a thorough understanding of the physics of universe would bring to humanity, I have to say that much of what I see seems to be jibberish backed up by fantastical mathematics that can't really prove anything.
    Exploring all the possibilities has merit and we can learn even from mistakes. But few seem too be willing to let go of these theories that appear to go nowhere.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  20. joseph shalosky said:

    This little girl seems to always be telling us what other scientific lunatics think. What does she think? Or is she afraid to stake her claim about reality? Cute though she is.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  21. Kenneth Gengler said:

    I believe our universe must be a …. PENTAGRAM!! There is so much evil in it.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  22. Ken Quesenberry said:

    Physicists are idiots, they might live in a holographic universe, but I don't.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  23. Adolfo Holguin said:

    Well, people are testing the holographic principle on condensed matter systems.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  24. gmeast said:

    huh???

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  25. MyDog Brian said:

    – So what your saying is that; "the Universe is nothing more than a dynamic image on the cover on a high priced christmas card."

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  26. WWTormentor said:

    Assuming that the universe is a hologram, then something has to create the hologram. In order to prove such an existence then one must show what created the hologram in the first place. Is there an outside universe that created this hologram? This brings us back to the chicken and the egg question.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  27. AD4MRick said:

    Kind of sounds like that pretty math. BTW the dress looks very nice on you.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  28. marc bell said:

    It would make more sense to be a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional space. My naive view of projections. Apologies to Dr. Susskind.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  29. JB Ghuman, Jr said:

    I appreciate her constant sort of "de-bunking" videos of the late but I do feel it's important we "forever continue" to speculate beyond the horizon given how little the human species knows of it's own origins let alone larger complications like dark matter / energy and a slew of other things. Heck, even gravity is still a bit of a mystery to humans in it's full understanding. There's behaviors of our own sun that to this day… defy understanding. Literally. So proceed with caution when looking at fringe science with skepticism. Without it, we wouldn't even have this medium of internet / computer age to even discuss such topics at all.

    Albert Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  30. SELVA RAJAN said:

    ..because they have to write up a paper for the journal ! No one with even half brain ( alternate term for all string theory scientists ) truly believes in such made up theories!

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  31. Charles Chidsey said:

    Most stylish physicist I’ve ever seen!

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  32. Socks With Sandals said:

    Yeah I never bought it because you need three dimensions to separate yourself from dangerous phenomena like quasars, gamma ray bursts, magnetars, supernovae, black holes. Everywhere in the universe except a small percentage of the Earth's surface is too deadly to be involved with.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  33. Henry Seldon said:

    I think I kind of get it – maybe? I was surprised at your conclusion, it's not a very strong theory with little to no evidence. Thank you for posting.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  34. Doutsoldome said:

    Very clear, as usual. I really like your channel and I've already got my copy of Lost in Math. I'll start reading it as soon as I find some time.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  35. Filemonefly9 said:

    A woman, who do not smile. (And seems NOT to be melancholic in nature 🤔).
    Hey, I'll show you!: 🤣😋😄😅🎈🌞🌊🌠. Try it it's fun. Just as an expression. To get it out of the confines, because I know you smile inside.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  36. Cubeoctahedron said:

    It's not a Hologram …it's three competing entities …one's a Sphere …and Cube …and a Polloid
    …and they are competing for the expression of perception …we call reality or Hi-Fidelity …or you're an In-Fidel …LOLOLOLOL

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  37. Cubeoctahedron said:

    If it's a hologram …then "JEM AND THE HOLOGRAMS" are running it …link below
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6G_o1MYECg

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  38. John Meyers said:

    Absolute horse shit.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  39. The Jim Reaper™ said:

    Ok so what would it mean if we're living in a holographic universe?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  40. Ben Adams said:

    Some scientists believe photons become shy, I call it the Darcy effect… it’s as much a piece of crap as the rest of so called theoretical science!
    Yet the truth is in front of our eyes, we have just been brainwashed not to see it.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  41. Ben Adams said:

    Science has gone gay, everybody is playing with his black hole and dark matter…

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  42. Ben Adams said:

    But you need the strings to hang yourself with it…
    The cosmological constant is positive?
    Do you even know what that radiation comes from, don’t say Big Bang please!!!
    You can’t test shit from 1915’ Einstein bull crap!!!
    Sorry you are aggravating me not so much for what you say, but for the perceived certainty of the contextual elements you bring forth.
    All you said is a waste of time and it is not an interesting idea, it’s a made up lie to hide the simple truth about our universe.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  43. Phillip Burns said:

    If a hologram it is one heck of a hologram 😁

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  44. Andrew Tobias said:

    Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is just a dream…

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  45. drdca said:

    Are there any ideas that you think are promising?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  46. sol rayz said:

    6:42 "… we will not be able to test this hypothesis in the coming centuries… therefore writing papers about it is a waste of time."  – Sabine Hossenfelder.   "When you think about it.. time is all you have." – a consultant/friend.  "What is mind?  no matter!  What is matter?  never mind !" – Homer Simpson;   I disagree with Sabine's "therefore" conclusion, though this is a great video.  The "playing the odds" rationale I've heard presumes that an advanced civilization will run MANY (universe) "simulations" (on super/ quantum) laboratory computers, that will vastly outnumber the "real" universes by zillions to one… so the odds that any one particular universe (like the one you happen to find yourself in) would be that RARE "real" one, are much less than the odds you'll be hit by lightening while reading this…. possible…but not likely (but then, the odds that you exist are frighteningly small, too… yet, there you are!  Also, supposedly the hologram model explains the light as particle vs. wave split beam experiment.   The odds are pretty good that more than half of what we think we know is not actually "true," … yet, I don't think that makes thinking a "waste of time."

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  47. T.R. Plume said:

    Question: Do scientists “believe” or do they draw conclusions based on the data presented?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  48. David Lanham said:

    Why do the laws of physics "break down" with both
    big bangs and black holes? Is it not suspicious that they are related and
    that they may be In and Out doors?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  49. Malte Müller said:

    After following all parts of "von aristoteles zur stringtheorie" i can somewhat follow this talk. Faszinating in the sense that otherwise i would have no clue at all, what this stuff is all about. Youtube university? Nah! 😀 But some gems can be found, this channel being of them.
    BTW a very pleasant voice.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  50. sparkyy0007 said:

    All the information is indeed present on the 2D surface, but there are n degrees of uncertainty encoded by the internal particles themselves which can never be known by an external observer.
    The idea is trivial gobilygook.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  51. CJ G said:

    That cube reminds me of a crossword puzzle and now I want a crossword puzzle cube.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  52. Andrew Ocean said:

    Some scientists are idiots; 97% of climate scientists, for example.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  53. Charles Brightman said:

    Consider the following:
    Hologram or not, what exactly is 'space' and what exactly is 'time' in that realm of existence to allow it to exist and do what it does?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  54. Charles Brightman said:

    Note: In the 3 by 3 cube example, what color is the center cube? For example, I exist in the center cube, what color am I?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  55. Charles Brightman said:

    Consider the following:
    The black hole with information on it's surface, still has to have a surface in actual existence for the information to be able to exist on and do what it does. Basically, what exactly is 'space'? What exactly is 'time'? What is the very nature of existence itself? What exactly does the black hole exist in?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  56. Tom Lee said:

    I don’t think we understand enough the workings of black holes, much less basing any new theory/hypothesis/conjecture on them.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  57. kkrobertson1 said:

    Hologram Universe is just a theory the same as dinosaur dragging their tails was once a theory! There is no hologram universe. Only a Universe that is so complex we can't understand it with our current knowledge. Where like 3yr olds trying to understand how an engine works.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  58. Daniël Mantione said:

    I am a simply computer scientist, and the way I interpret the holographic principle, is something as follows:

    type elementary_particle=(
    photon,
    gluon,

    w_boson,

    z_boson,
    higgsboson,
    kaon,
    pion,
    meson,
    quark,
    lepton,
    neutrino,
    elektron,
    positron,
    muon,
    tau
    );
     
    vector3=(x,y,z:real);

    vector4=(x,y,z,time:real);

    type particle_instance=record
    particle:elementary_particle;

    position:vector4; {time and space are equal according to Einstein}
    movement_direction:vector3; {or should it be vector4?}
    end;

    {2D surface of information according to holographic principle}

    holographic_information_surface = array [real,real] of particle_instance;

    {According to Verlinde, the macroscopic structure of the universe is still 3-dimensional,
    despite holographic projection.}

    universe=array[real,real,real] of holographic_information_surface;

    I have no what physisists think of it, but this is what I do in my brain to help understanding it 🙂

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  59. Restoration of Identity said:

    These concepts that certain physicists describe like holographic universe, simulation theory. Multi dimensional string theory. It appears we are at a loss at knowing how and why the universe functions. But so many of us folks want science or spirituality to makes us feel important and connected to the universe. I guess we are scared shitless and will try anything to believe we are unique. I could be wrong and life consciousness are fundamental to the universe, a sort of panpsychism or idealism.. I wish it were easier and we all know what and why we are hear to experience life.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  60. Glenn Joy said:

    Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Well Sabine certainly explained it in very simple terms! Well done! There were only 3 terms I didn't quite grasp! Holograms, anti-de Sitter and why are the guts of a black hole=to the area of the horizon!

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  61. J man said:

    I was shocked when i first heard of the holographic universe. not because the idea, but because of how those so called scientists are crazy into. I do not need to waste my energy to dig into it, it is a problem of their insanity, not the universe itself.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  62. Dan Rowley said:

    Doc: You know if speculators can get paid big bucks to write a paper about a theory that may or may never be proved…. in 5-10 lifetimes they will. Who alive now, even if it's kept for further studying 300-500 yrs. down the road is going to be assured their argument gets a fair shake? No one of course. 99% of Science is speculation. I'm counting all fields of Science, even some you, yourself, would call crackpot science. The leftover 1% is the serious, straight down the line science. That's a boatload. Is the String Theory crackpot or not? How about Quantum Mechanics? Now this? I watch your videos for a myriad of reasons. Understanding them is another thing. So, if this writing sounds inane now you know why. But that doesn't mean I won't stop watching them.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  63. My Perspective said:

    The holographic representation only represents our topical perception of what see.
    The holographic representation doesn't take into account our ability to presume depth, consistency, density, trajectories, or constraints with regards to boundaries.
    We even find it hard to translate what we proceed. The holographic representation is only a percentage or a derivative of what we perceive.
    Just ask a programmer about that when they are trying to program constraints into a VR games.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  64. Nickel Chrome said:

    I find the mainstream topics boring to death, and the dubious implication that there are deep philosophical principles underneath almost unbearable. I'd better see some dissident views, for saying that today's fundamental physics is erring, but wallowing in it lacks consistence.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  65. Peeter Vois said:

    How do we know that a theory leads nowhere? Physics answers: until we set up an experiment that disapproves theory's key predictions. What shall we do if the key predictions are not clear?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  66. Dale Lerette said:

    A black hole seems like three-dimensional point in space whose center of gravity is larger than the space it occupies.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  67. Bennett Austin said:

    Susskind has some great lectures on this topic as well as a very good paper if any of you want a further understanding

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  68. UltimateBargains said:

    "Virtual Reality" video games represent 3-dimensional worlds in only 1 dimension of Random Access Memory (RAM)..
    Time is represented as "virtual clock ticks" when time elapses in discrete increments, and "everything" happens (i.e., changes) between clock ticks; like quantum mechanical phenomenon.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  69. Tom Space said:

    Search YouTube for "The Elements in Six Dimensions"

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  70. Jeffrey Lightbourn said:

    "Quantum fluctuation messes with the Planck scale, which then triggers the Deutsch proposition. Can we all agree on that?"

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  71. Mark Lucas said:

    Just discovered this channel. Hossenfelder explains (and presents) even better than Sean Carroll. I feel like she could explain 'anything' to 'anyone'. It is so effective it's like physically drinking from a fountain – in this case a fountain of knowledge. She makes me crave just a little more detail because she ignites my curiosity.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  72. fugamante said:

    A thorough (for the layman at least) yet aptly digestible exploration of the ideas behind such an engaging subject. The holographic principle has been one of marvelous interest to me since I saw the first holographic images some years back. The necessary visual information of 3D object confined to a 2D space! Wow, what a sight to behold at such a young age. Mesmerizing stuff. Of course, this is not what physicist, like yourself, refers to when they approach the matter of the holographic principle, but still, in my aficionado’s mind they do work in tandem to help me understand, I feel… although to be honest I lack the mathematical expertise to “really” understand😅

    Nonetheless, that relationship between the information within the vessel given the conditions of the surface of the vessel is such a good analogy, yet it makes me wonder about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal given that… whatever the projections at the surface of the vessel is, it will tell us so much about the phenomena within… but how much can we extrapolate from that? Is it only that one projection that we need to “read” to grasp enough of the phenomena within the vessel? Black-holes are infamously deceiving objects precisely because of the quality and resolution of the information they offer at the horizon area…

    I know we are vastly more knowledgeable about black-holes now than some 10 years ago… of which I don’t know but a pinch about, yet… it’s how you very well mentioned at the end of the video about the impracticality of the whole endeavor of “Fausting” away time on a subject that is plenty years away from any significant experimental validation.

    But what a wonderful subject it is! And who knows? Hard subjects like this might be what gives our almost mythical “next Einstein” the inspiration to concoct a new and even prettier Theory of Relativity (as in a new theory of such magnitude, not about Relativity per sé… although… who knows?).

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  73. Steed said:

    Ok, another definitive proof that I am lost for science.. 😂 thx Sabine

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  74. Real Donald Trump said:

    We live in a cross cap projective plane manifold.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  75. Oliver Gröning said:

    Informative as ever Sabine. Would you consider to share with us your thoughts on reversibility/irreversibility in QM in view of the open 'Measurement Problem'?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  76. Steve Miner said:

    I could follow this whole principle more clearly if you were naked. Please do another video in this fashon🙂

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  77. william blake said:

    tl;dr "the motivations for the holographic principle are not partuculary strong"…and all "is a waste of time" 🙂

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  78. J B said:

    You are right. Just by examinating your gesture and your dress, I feel you completely sexy and attracting. Unfortunately, you still remain like an hologram !

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  79. BigBadWolf said:

    "definitely maybe", without the slightest smirk. I lost it. Subscribed.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  80. Michael Smith said:

    Who cares what some "scientists" believe? No facts to back up a belief = faith.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  81. freddy2nt said:

    Sounds like a "Terms and conditions". I have no idea what it means, but I agree anyway!

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  82. Vic Wawa said:

    Nice theory – but only theory nothing less nothing more same as gravity and everything that includes gravity – Space/Black holes/Big Bang.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  83. Rob Wells said:

    I have a "learning disability". That is, when someone is teaching a complex subject,. if the material is verbal, little of it sticks, and no real understanding may take place on my part. I require pictures, diagrams, shapes and, even better, an animated video.
    All that being said, I do believe that the universe is basically empty space and really does just exist as "perception".

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  84. Robert said:

    Now we expect a video on several metrics for calculating entropy.. 😊

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  85. rrobertt13 said:

    So, a 3x3x3=27 cube has 6x3x3=54 surface cubes? That's some fucked-up shit right there.
    Please do the math next time, ok?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  86. rrobertt13 said:

    Isn't the area of the sphere proportional to it's volume? That's more or less what a black hole is, isn't it? A sphere. So the area is proportional to the volume. Isn't it?

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  87. Jeremy Cornwell said:

    Most scientists have never left earth.

    September 17, 2019
    Reply
  88. BK Lanyon said:

    Thank you.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  89. HAROLD cOOPER said:

    Could it be that the holographic mapping goes in the opposite direction ?  Then instead generating a dream world consisting of 3d correlations, the hologram might be a 2-d record of what goes on 3-dimensionally–like an actual hologram. If this record were made just as information is apparently gobbled up via the hawking paradox, could this it resolve it?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  90. Spear Shaker said:

    Magnetoholography is amazing looking. Look it up

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  91. The TruManZoo said:

    Reality is exactly the other way around, we observe a 2D representation, of a 3 Dimensional space….

    we observe a 2D representation of a 3D space. it's basically how light works when tranferring an "image".
    any change of medium results in a refractive surface, ON which we observe a image, formed by light from space.

    "Area" of a black hole = 2D…. X.Y…. 3D space gives us no actual depth, no Z axis, because of how light functions and gives us information from far…
    The reason einsteins E=mc2 functions is BECAUSE the formula LACKS a 3rd dimension, a Z-Axis. C.C = X.Y.

    E=mc³ is more realistic as energy is always a cubed volume AND Mass is a cubed volume, light is projected in a straight line, through 3D space… ON the edge of our thin atmospheric refractive projection screen….we experience a 2D image of a 3D space…. you are doing astro pjhysics based off of a flat plate…. that captured 2D light…. only our observations are 2D holographic…

    black holes…. a light source e.g. SUN behind a sphere, resulst in a dark circular silhouette, a shadow projected over large distances, yet shadows do not travel als they are the absense of light…. we observe a 2D blakc hole, a shadow that never contained any information, at all, ever.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  92. Ryben Flynn said:

    They watched "The Matrix" one too many times or they are just plain idiots.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  93. lucasbachmann said:

    I'd say Susskind has definitely portrayed the holographic principle as implying: What we perceive to be reality is an emergent property (or illusion) of something going on in a more fundamental reality with one less dimension.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  94. TheRocketman136 said:

    Amazing. Took some time to think about it, but it's absolutely fascinating idea. Thank you.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  95. Muuip said:

    I know very little about all this and it sounds like she makes great concise presentations to understand it all. Glad I find her, hope all the interactions mentioned are correct.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  96. T.L. Watkinson said:

    Very amusing. How do you know if an hypothesis is irrationally held, if it cannot be tested?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  97. Björn Michaelis said:

    Their Business Models are obvious nowadays: Mix 2 extreemly Developed but almost useless models (black holes + topology, Supercomputer + light/athmospere chemistry, …) and study it with taxpayer Money. If taxpayer complains, Tell him He does Not even Unserstand the Basic Models and Schall shutup.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  98. John Nowakowski said:

    So honey, how did your day go today?…

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  99. UFCPR said:

    I didn’t understand anything! 😂

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  100. Jan Petersson said:

    The RIGHT answer is, there is no space, we live on a flat earth covered of a firmament 110 km over us, check operation High Jump and Fish Ball Dominic for god sake or continue to live like children in Your brain

    September 18, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *