Holographic universe article

Rod_TorfulsonRod_Torfulson 464 Posts
edited March 2006 in Strut Central
The Holographic UniverseDoes Objective Reality Exist?By Michael Talbot In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case. This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram. In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web. In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is." Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development". Bohm is not the
only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain. In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram. Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with ever other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system. The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism. Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "cosmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram. This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

  Comments


  • Options


    Just watched this last night.

    K.

  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    Literally

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    I don't have time to read the whole article right now (I will later) but I thought I'd chip in and explain some interesting facts about David Bohm.

    David Bohm is famous for guage theories, but he is also famous for being a rogue scientist in quantum mechanics for what is called "Bohm Theory" (and also for his nice theory Aharanov-Bohm theory). To my knowledge there are only a handful of scientists actually tackling the problem of Bohm Theory, which is a very deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (I personally do not like it at all). Bohm is also known for his political affiliations being a member of the American Communist Party during the 40's and 50's, a leading member of the Young Communist League, as well as being black listed form many academic posts for these political leanings.

    When I was doing graduate studies at the University of Waterloo, they built one of the largest theoretical physics institutes in the world (The Perimeter Institute). There was one researcher employed there who was another rogue physicist also working on David Bohm theory. His name was Antony Valentini.

    This dude was a player. I knew a few girls who got caught in his traps. He had silk bed sheets and a closet full of mono-colour V-Neck sweaters. He also had a really fucked up twitch and his talks were hilarious for his absurd mannerisms and unique pretentions.

    For that reason alone I can't really get behind Bohm theory. Dude is just wack.



    PS - When was this article written. Perhaps the David Bohm quoted in that article is a different one because dude died in 1992. Nevertheless, I'll get back to yall tomorrow.

  • Thanks for the info. I have a shitload more reading to do.

  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    thanks for posting this -- I was reading about this hologrpahic thing about two or three years ago. (started out with Fred Allan Wolf and worked my way back to Bohm.) Very fascinating although I never really understood, fundamentally, what is going on in a hologram. It is an easy trap for amateur/untrained scientists like myself (in my imagination) to fall into. All the language of quantum phsyics and holograms is so shiny and fantastic that people like me claim to understand it and apply it somehow to our lives without really understainding the mathematics behind it. Also, it somehow reaffirms our beliefs that we are the centers of the universe -- possesing inside of us the enitre thing!! -- while only paying lip service to chance and randomness.

    Phsyics has gotten so out of control lately. So speculative and science fictiony because well, we've turned the thing back on ourselves and all we see now is the mirror of consciousness. That's why Im interested in biology these days. There seem to be so many unsolved problems, like for instance, how the brain stores information??????????????????

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    thanks for posting this -- I was reading about this hologrpahic thing about two or three years ago. (started out with Fred Allan Wolf and worked my way back to Bohm.) Very fascinating although I never really understood, fundamentally, what is going on in a hologram. It is an easy trap for amateur/untrained scientists like myself (in my imagination) to fall into. All the language of quantum phsyics and holograms is so shiny and fantastic that people like me claim to understand it and apply it somehow to our lives without really understainding the mathematics behind it. Also, it somehow reaffirms our beliefs that we are the centers of the universe -- possesing inside of us the enitre thing!! -- while only paying lip service to chance and randomness.
    Dude, thank you for saying this. Pop-science really aggrivates me and it's good to hear that some people who are into it actually recognize the lack of understanding and flashy woordyness that comes with it.

    I studied quantum field theory in graduate school, and I still don't understand it. Mathematically, quantum physics is very needs much more rigour. Which is why I am now in Mathematics

    For example, one of the big problems in QM now is its treatment of time. The way that it is treated in Field theory, which was developed by Feynmann, isn't even fucking defined at all! In fact, Feynman said in his paper and Nobel prize speach that he was not a mathematician and that his theory is not rigorous. The most important function he uses, the time-ordering operator, isn't even properly explained! And they wonder why they are having so many problems!?#!@

    CANONICAL == BRINGING IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPALS.

    BATCH!


  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    thanks for posting this -- I was reading about this hologrpahic thing about two or three years ago. (started out with Fred Allan Wolf and worked my way back to Bohm.) Very fascinating although I never really understood, fundamentally, what is going on in a hologram. It is an easy trap for amateur/untrained scientists like myself (in my imagination) to fall into. All the language of quantum phsyics and holograms is so shiny and fantastic that people like me claim to understand it and apply it somehow to our lives without really understainding the mathematics behind it. Also, it somehow reaffirms our beliefs that we are the centers of the universe -- possesing inside of us the enitre thing!! -- while only paying lip service to chance and randomness.
    Dude, thank you for saying this. Pop-science really aggrivates me and it's good to hear that some people who are into it actually recognize the lack of understanding and flashy woordyness that comes with it.


    I studied quantum field theory in graduate school, and I still don't understand it. Mathematically, quantum physics is very needs much more rigour. Which is why I am now in Mathematics

    For example, one of the big problems in QM now is its treatment of time. The way that it is treated in Field theory, which was developed by Feynmann, isn't even fucking defined at all! In fact, Feynman said in his paper and Nobel prize speach that he was not a mathematician and that his theory is not rigorous. The most important function he uses, the time-ordering operator, isn't even properly explained! And they wonder why they are having so many problems!?#!@

    CANONICAL == BRINGING IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPALS.

    BATCH!


    crystals, strings, holograms -- we use the technology we have at the time as our metaphors.

    I couldnt even imagine dealing with time at the level of a quark. What the hell is time there???? And then formalising that??? You gots some work to do dude!!! Have you read Penrose's the Road to Reality? He seems a bit more reasonable. And his view of how gravity collapses the wave seems cool to me, though apparently doesn't prove accurate in experiments.

    I actually just re-read "Surely you must be joking," again for like the twentieth time. I was on a real flaky kick before that, and now I say to myself before I think or do anything "What would Feynman do?" And I were it on a bracelet when I go record digging.

  • I definitely don't fully grasp these concepts yet. I have a basic understanding but i don't have the knowldedge of the mechanics themselves. Sort of like being able to drive a car but not work on it myself if that makes sense. You should check out a book called the Cosmic Serpent. I found an excerpt online, it covers a bunch of other stuff too:




    My fieldwork concerned Ashaninca resource use???with particular emphasis on their rational and pragmatic techniques. To emphasize the hallucinatory origin of Ashaninca ecological knowledge would have been counterproductive to the main argument underlying my research. Nevertheless, the enigma remained: These extremely practical and frank people, living almost autonomously in the Amazonian forest, insisted that their extensive botanical knowledge came from plant-induced hallucinations. How could this be true?

    The enigma was all the more intriguing because the botanical knowledge of indigenous Amazonians has long astonished scientists. The chemical composition of ayahuasca is a case in point. Amazonian shamans have been preparing ayahuasca for millennia. The brew is a necessary combination of two plants, which must be boiled together for hours. The first contains a hallucinogenic substance, dimethyltryptamine, which also seems to be secreted by the human brain; but this hallucinogen has no effect when swallowed, because a stomach enzyme called monoamine oxidase blocks it. The second plant, however, contains several substances that inactivate this precise stomach enzyme, allowing the hallucinogen to reach the brain.

    So here are people without electron microscopes who choose, among some 80,000 Amazonian plant species, the leaves of a bush containing a hallucinogenic brain hormone, which they combine with a vine containing substances that inactivate an enzyme of the digestive tract, which would otherwise block the hallucinogenic effect. And they do this to modify their consciousness.

    It is as if they knew about the molecular properties of plants and the art of combining them, and when one asks them how they know these things, they say their knowledge comes directly from hallucinogenic plants.

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    Hahaha, I love Surley you must be joking (although I've never read it back to front, always just skip to stories when I'm bored).

    Feynman was hard as fuck. Even though his theories were not mathematically rigorous, his ideas were crazy. Literally insane. If you can bare it, I really recommend reading his Nobel Prize speach. It can be heavy on the physics, but the intro and outro are worth it. I really respect and look up to that dude. Plus he played the bongo's.

    Peace to feynman. Pickin' up girls in Casinos. Classic.

    I haven't read a pop-science book since Greene's "The Elegant Universe". Now that I am over educated I can just read the OG papers.

  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    can we get an "altered states facemelt?"


  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    Oh, and Feynman's last words:

    "I'd hate to die twice, it's so boring."


  • JazzsuckaJazzsucka 720 Posts
    Interesting read.

    Hard science always puts me off because of the fact that you can mostly focus on only one aspect of the universe at a time to make any sense of it, and even if you make some progress during your short life you just die without seeing the final results of your work. A bit frustrating isn't it, that even after all that, you wont see what makes it all tick. My brain just isn't built for that highly mathematical shit anyway I prefer metaphors and abstract mechanisms to make sense of it all.












  • BlightyBlighty 225 Posts
    I don't have time to read the whole article right now (I will later) but I thought I'd chip in and explain some interesting facts about David Bohm.

    David Bohm is famous for guage theories, but he is also famous for being a rogue scientist in quantum mechanics for what is called "Bohm Theory" (and also for his nice theory Aharanov-Bohm theory). To my knowledge there are only a handful of scientists actually tackling the problem of Bohm Theory, which is a very deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (I personally do not like it at all). Bohm is also known for his political affiliations being a member of the American Communist Party during the 40's and 50's, a leading member of the Young Communist League, as well as being black listed form many academic posts for these political leanings.

    When I was doing graduate studies at the University of Waterloo, they built one of the largest theoretical physics institutes in the world (The Perimeter Institute). There was one researcher employed there who was another rogue physicist also working on David Bohm theory. His name was Antony Valentini.

    This dude was a player. I knew a few girls who got caught in his traps. He had silk bed sheets and a closet full of mono-colour V-Neck sweaters. He also had a really fucked up twitch and his talks were hilarious for his absurd mannerisms and unique pretentions.

    For that reason alone I can't really get behind Bohm theory. Dude is just wack.



    PS - When was this article written. Perhaps the David Bohm quoted in that article is a different one because dude died in 1992. Nevertheless, I'll get back to yall tomorrow.

    I don't understand why you are writing Bohm off. Because he's not mainstream? Because 50+ years ago he was a communist? Because someone who was working on the same theories hit on students at your university and had a twitch?

  • 1219197712191977 323 Posts



  • dCastillodCastillo 1,963 Posts
    stoners.

    i know some of yall wanna record some fish now.

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    I don't understand why you are writing Bohm off. Because he's not mainstream?
    No.
    Because 50+ years ago he was a communist?
    No. This makes me respect him more.
    Because someone who was working on the same theories hit on students at your university and had a twitch?
    No. I just thought that guy was pretty funny and I would share the stories as well as that ridiculous picture of him.

    I don't like Bohm's theory because I'm not a fan of deterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    stoners.

    dude. I'll shit on Newton. Mainstream science is the dub version of the real world.
Sign In or Register to comment.