Posts

Showing posts with the label mechanics

Are We Holograms?

Most of the famous movies and novels that are dealing with remarkable and bold scientific ideas in existence, like plotting the script behind the most intriguing property in the latest string theory called the "holographic principle", lack one main attraction I am always looking for in science fiction. The plausibility of the story. To get to the wider audience, science behind is somehow always pushed below the main layer, and the result is either too philosophical, ridiculous, or unnecessary complex (like planting humans for energy in 'Matrix' by AIs) or simple love story, like in case of "The Thirteenth Floor", or other simple and proven Good-vs-Bad chases in virtual realities, like those portrayed in Caprica.

The Thirteenth Floor*

But, if I had to choose one of those Hollywood fictions, maybe you would be surprised if I preferred "The Thirteenth Floor" over all the others I had a chance to watch or read. For one simple reason. Like with the holographic principle in string theories, producers identified one very true prediction in such realities and embedded it in the film and its poster ad as well—the boundary that represents the very end of the world. In the movie, both virtual characters learn about their worlds not being the real deal by discovering their own artificial horizons where all the roads inevitably and ultimately end. Almost like in the Middle Ages when the Earth was considered to be flat and there was a point where it eventually ended or in the myth with Earth carried by four elephants standing on a turtle floating in a never-ending ocean. Like many times before, the science fiction behind this might not be too far from the truth at all, and if you think that centuries after the flat Earth myth, we finally learned that Earth is spherical and doesn't have an end along with our endless and ever-expanding universe, well, think again. With new findings and several published papers within ongoing string theory research, especially within holographic principle research of black hole event horizons, a new and exciting (or disturbing, looking at it from our own perspective) plausible reality might be considered the accurate one. And yes, with the new theory, our own universe now has an end in the form of one tiny two-dimensional bubble where we all might actually be located in our true form, and the universe, as we perceive it, is just a figment of our imagination or, to be precise, a hologram made out of some other reality residing in the outer bubble we simply know as the cosmological horizon.

Plausible?

Like with the end of the road in the movie, theoretical physicists hit the wall sometimes when they try to describe some astronomical processes. Exactly this was the case when Stephen Hawking discovered black hole radiation. Hawking radiation is made out of a pair of virtual particles emerging from a vacuum where the positive particle manages to escape the event horizon while the negative one gets absorbed by the black hole, resulting in the black hole losing energy and eventually evaporating. In other words, radiation from a black hole seems to not originate from the inside of the black hole at all. If this is true, then all the information of the matter swallowed by the black hole is lost forever, and that in fact contradicts quantum mechanics, which dictates that nothing, including information, can ever be lost. At the time, this problem, called the black hole information paradox, divided leading scientists to the point of a simple bet, where nobody was absolutely sure what was going on in the mysterious holes. There was even a book, published six years ago, conveniently named “The Black Hole War” by Leonard Susskind, committed to this paradox in physics.

Holographic Principle to Multiverse Reality**

Of course, paradoxes are only there to indicate that something is wrong, either with fundamentals or with the theories. In this case it's either something wrong with quantum mechanics and its math, and information can be lost in black holes, or this is impossible and some new (or one of the existing) theory is still waiting to be proven and accepted by mainstream science. You can find many of proposed solutions in below links, from the one where information still, by some unknown process, find the way to leak along with radiation of virtual particles through the one, that I preferred in the past, where black hole in the other end forms a baby universe with all the information transferred to the newly created cosmos to the most hypothetical one in which something happens at the very last moments of black hole evaporation, similar to the supernovae explosion with all the information finally burst out or ... in the more exotic realm ... and what is the newest approach and recently backed with new evidence, that all the information actually got copied in the tiny two-dimensional film of the event horizon and maybe never entered the black hole in the first place by some black hole quantum mechanism. If we use the life metaphor, the content of a black hole holds only corpses, while information, like a soul, left the body in the moment of death, or in this case, when it irretrievably fell into singularity. Actually, this approach is now widely accepted among string theorists, and it is appropriately named the "holographic principle", which all new string theories now include.

The scientific explanation for this principle is "the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region". String theory, proposed by Juan Martín Maldacena, Gerard ’t Hooft, and Leonard Susskind with the holographic principle included, suggests that not only with black holes but everywhere in the universe, all the information needed to describe a closed system or volume of space with any physical process inside can be fully encoded within the two-dimensional surface surrounding it. If this is correct, then we can go further and conclude that all the physical processes in the monitoring system are actually happening on the surface instead of in its three-dimensional representation, and our familiar space-time continuum might be just a (holographic) projection of the two-dimensional entities and events. On the larger scale, this theory allows that the entire universe can be understood as the reality of a two-dimensional information structure encoded within the cosmological horizon, while the three spatial dimensions we live in are only its representation at macroscopic scales and at low energies described by cosmological holography.


In other words, it might mean that there is a two-dimensional me (and you) at the end of the universe, more than 13 billion light-years away, encoded somewhere in the cosmological horizon, that is a full description of myself and controlling all my actions (and reactions) over here. Strangely enough, recently more evidence has been suggested in scientific research by Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his team. What they did was to perform a mathematical calculation of the internal energy of a black hole based on the predictions of string theory. By using the proposed holographic principle, they compared the results with the calculated internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity and found the amazing fact that they match completely. They, of course, used a model of a hypothetical universe, which is not a representation of our own, but still, this is the most valuable "proof" in favor of holographic theory. And not just that, if these calculations are right, this practically means that one complex universe with gravity included (that still fails to be understood fully) can be explained and compared by the flat universe with no gravity force whatsoever.

The holographic universe is, of course, highly hypothetical and hard to comprehend, but the main principle is solid; calculations are there, math exists, and it brings both a solution to the information paradox in black hole physics and a way to simplify our future modeling of astronomical systems. With a possibility to exclude gravity out of the equation, the holographic principle is already nicknamed the "21st-century Rosetta Stone" in the world of mathematics, and if proven accurate, we could be a bit closer to the final understanding of how nature really works. But, like any other new breakthrough discovery, it could open many more questions on the way, and the obvious one is if the main reality is in the information surface, how does it work? How does life fit in? Is it also located on the surface and projected like everything else, or perhaps living creatures are something else that works independently?

Images and article refs:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
** https://community.emc.com/people/ble/blog/2011/11/06/holographic-principle
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/12/do-black-holes-destroy-information/

Refs:
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
http://rt.com/news/space-evidence-universe-hologram-195/
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jun/03-our-universe-may-be-a-giant-hologram
http://astroengine.com/2009/01/20/is-the-universe-a-holographic-projection/
http://www.universetoday.com/107172/why-our-universe-is-not-a-hologram/
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/hawkrad.htm
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity

Déjà vu

In the writers' world, titles are extremely important. If they are strong enough, the stories are practically writing themselves. So to speak. According to MarketingProfs research, more than 2 million articles, posts, and stories are published online every day, and lots of people read no further than the title. Opening lines capable of forcing you to perform the actual click are nowadays a rarity, and I am not talking about those behind daily politics and current worldwide affairs. It's about all those titles that don't expire with the next election or season. I am talking about all those powerful enough to coin new words.

The one on today's menu is exceptional. Simply, "Déjà vu" has it all, with the potential of diving into the mysterious and unexplored world of the human brain. It always comes with a great glimpse into fabulous quantum mechanics we are still pioneering to understand, tons of speculations of various kinds, including spiritual experiences, subconscious networks of living beings, bugs in divine intelligent design, telepathic experiences... You name it. But I'll stop right here because this post is not going to be about speculations. It will be just a teaser of my hopefully rational but also skeptical mind. Also, a couple of theories as well.


But, let me start with my first and probably the strongest déjà vu I still remember a vivid scene from yesterday's movie I watched on cable. Hmm, "cable", an interesting word, as this was exactly what I was doing when it happened. The year was 1985, and I was the main technician in the school play back in my early days of high school. It was probably the best year of my school days thanks to this play because it lasted a couple of months during winter, and we were extremely enthusiastic about it, and there were lots of stories left from that period of us growing up. Well, in short, I was mounting cables on the stage for the borrowed, old-fashioned even for that year, tape player, as I was the one who was in charge of audio effects for the play, and in a brief moment I glimpsed the scene: two actors rehearsing the main dialogue, and in the background I could see a couple of the first rows of the school's musical hall with our teacher sitting in the first row and a couple more viewers and friends watching from the back. I remember I froze. It was like I pressed a pause key in my head, and for a moment I couldn't hear a sound, just stared at that one photo moment of my surroundings. At first, it was like a moment that I had already experienced in the past. Only not quite, as I wasn't able to identify the moment, and perhaps the better explanation would be that this was the moment comparable to a computer reboot - like the computer in my brain rebooted itself in a microsecond, and the image that appeared first in the memory was the same one from the moment before rebooting, or the brain's CPU froze for a couple of moments while all senses were still on, and this image appeared in multiple memory locations and was therefore more intense than others. However, this is how I felt after that night, and ever since then I have had more similar déjà vu experiences, but this first one was, for some reason, more memorable than all the others.

I can't be sure, of course, but whatever it is, it must be related to how the brain works, and it is either a brain feature or a bug. Scientifically speaking, we still don't have working knowledge of a human brain, and therefore it is hard to tell, but we could say with high accuracy that the human brain is not a digital computer. More plausibly, it functions in some sort of analog form where all data stored in brain neurons are not comparable to memory chips we are using today. Perhaps they operate like quantum qubits, where one qubit could have unlimited states instead of just two, like modern memory circuits have today. That way the same arrays of qubits could be used to store different images, and to pull out the one you need, quantum computers only need to set the patterns and form the image out of current states of qubits. However, I am not saying that the human brain is a quantum computer, only that as soon as we learn more about its functionality, we will have more skills to explain the "déjà vu" phenomenon as well.


However, what we can do even without a scientific background is to use something else, and that's the "Occam's razor" principle. In short, it advises us not to use complex explanations, and instead the right one is usually the simplest one. So if we try that and reject all complex ones, like multiple universes or dimensions, quantum entanglements, and invisible forces able to connect two human brains in the subconscious realm, what is left is a simple explanation, and that one would be that the "déjà vu" moment is really the image acquired in our brain that really resembles some other image we experienced before. Only in that particular moment does the brain fail to recognize it. It is a really great explanation. Just think how much data we acquired in our lives. We watched hundreds of movies during our lifespan, watched television daily, traveled, encountered different people and situations, and participated in various events. So, in short, there must be tons of data in our heads, and there is no wonder we are unable to see the difference or to recognize them all instantly. Remember these moments when some smell reminds us of some event, even those distant in our childhood? This is the same with images and moments. Sometimes some similar settings or moments remind us of something, but we are simply unable to resolve what.

By recognizing the fact that I am not really that great a presenter within my blog stories, I decided to ask for the help of one of the great thinkers today. The following video is how Michio Kaku explains déjà vu" in Big Think's series:


However, science works by proving theorems. So, there is nothing wrong if we post a couple of theories for future validation. But we have to be careful here, as every theory must be built on solid ground; otherwise, it is only a speculation at best. I guess it is valid to claim that the human brain is a sort of quantum computer, but it is hard to prove it at this point in time, as we still don't have working quantum computers other than experimental ones. If, in the future, we develop and industrialize quantum-based systems and servers, then we might have the tool to examine the brain in such a fashion and then confirm or reject the "brain quantum computer" theory. On the other end, speaking of a solid ground base for establishing theories in addition to quantum computers, to me one thing is clear, and you probably heard it in the media in the form of a short phrase: "We all are made of stars". It is complete truth, and I mean this literally: all atoms you, I, and Michio Kaku are made of originate from exploding stars, and such violent explosions are a great source of quantum entangled particles. We still don't have full knowledge of quantum entanglement, but it is proved that entangled particles share the same properties on both short and long distances, maybe even in time. So, based on current research, and if entangled particles are able to survive long lives without breaking entanglement, it is not far from common sense that two individuals can share two such particles that connect them in some way. Plausible? It is still years too early to tell, but it is certainly something worthwhile exploring. It would explain a lot. Especially the famous so-called 6th sense and even those common situations in everyone's life when you, during walks, all of a sudden start thinking about a friend of yours without any reason, and then a couple of blocks later you meet him in a flash. It happened to me a couple of times. I love science, and I am sure this will not be my last post about yet unexplained phenomena.

Every now and again I stumble upon titles and articles about the greatness of scientific thought and why we must never stop pursuing it. I also have a short personal story to add additional value to the topic: when I was a boy, I remember I asked my father why both the sky and the sea are blue. He didn't think twice and said that the sky is blue because we can't see how high it is, and the sea is also blue because we can't see how deep it is. He pointed to my head and said, "One day you will learn that eyes are not the ultimate tool of perception. Your brain is."

A couple of years later, I stumbled upon one great article about optics, Isaac Newton, and prisms in my favorite magazine and learned all about visible light and its wavelengths. Ever since then, I know exactly why the sky and sea are blue.

References and story follow-ups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déjà_vu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_UHmaZcSg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
http://www.healthkicker.com/754397472/whats-up-with-deja-vu/