Physics: Life is a holograph

**avgas** · 17th August 2010, 09:54

Originally Posted by Pixie

Shrodinger's cat is still at the vet's

With a bad case of curiosity?

**Hans** · 17th August 2010, 10:09

Originally Posted by avgas

Lovely so this is all based on perception.
Nice to know we have such a solid baseline of reference
dont tell the blind people!!!

No, it's not. It's based on observation. The point is: the outcome is based on the situation of the observer. Any number of individual observers in an identical position will give identical outcomes. Hence it's not perception.

**Winston001** · 17th August 2010, 11:09

Originally Posted by Hans

WRONG. THE EXPERIMENT TOOK PLACE IN 1980. THE PAPER DETAILING THE EXPERIMENT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1982.

BOLLOCKS. THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THIS "ACTION OVER DISTANCE" HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.

UTTER BOLLOCKS. INFORMATION CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED IN THIS WAY. UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE LIMIT FOR COMMUNICATION.

Make up your own minds on how reliable the rest of the article is. Not that it wouldn't be extremely interesting, if there was something to this basic theory.

I'm pretty much with you but have a few general comments:

Einstein did not say in Special Relativity that you cannot travel faster than light.

What he did postulate was that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source

Poincare postulated - before Einstein - that the speed of light was an upper limit for mass and information.

Physicists argue about this today and there are experiments which demonstrate negative velocity ie. when a pulse appears before it is sent. Such is the wonderful world of the quantum. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077368/

We don't know the distance quantum entanglement occurs over but nothing so far confirms its only local time/space.

I think the article on holographic information has a few holes in it but its written for non-scientists which can be forgiven. I don't like the meandering into metaphysics at the end but acknowledge that is a logical path.

The essential point is that a holographic view of the universe where everything is connected - presumably in the sea of quantum foam - is a fascinating proposition. It answers some weird stuff and is worth thinking about.

**avgas** · 17th August 2010, 16:09

Originally Posted by Hans

Any number of individual observers in an identical position will give identical outcomes.

Are you sure about that.
History has told us otherwise.

**Banditbandit** · 17th August 2010, 16:34

Originally Posted by Pixie

The fact that entangled particles affect each other,by definition,implies that information was transferred.

Shrodinger's cat is still at the vet's

No it doesn't. Information implies a high level cognative skill which is not evident in particles.

**Banditbandit** · 17th August 2010, 16:36

Originally Posted by avgas

Lovely so this is all based on perception.
Nice to know we have such a solid baseline of reference
dont tell the blind people!!!

Yes. Change your perception - change the world ... The basis of the dharma ...

**Banditbandit** · 17th August 2010, 16:40

Originally Posted by Hans

No, it's not. It's based on observation. The point is: the outcome is based on the situation of the observer. Any number of individual observers in an identical position will give identical outcomes. Hence it's not perception.

Yes .. but all observation is intertwined with perception. There can be no observation from an objective position. Multiple observers seeing identical outcomes just means they share the same perceptions.

I want to qualify that a little .. because the repetative nature of our apparent world is the basis of our functioning within it. Gravity always causes things to fall towards each other ... friction allows us to walk ...

However, how we break up and label the world is tied up with our perceptions, which are developed and indoctirnated with language and the culture we grew up in. (Read Kant .. )

**Edbear** · 17th August 2010, 16:42

Originally Posted by Hans

No, it's not. It's based on observation. The point is: the outcome is based on the situation of the observer. Any number of individual observers in an identical position will give identical outcomes. Hence it's not perception.

Would it not be observation of measurable experiments? Not dependent upon the perceptions of the observer but the observer simply records the results, not affecting the outcome.

How does it apply that the situation of the observer affects the outcome?

**Banditbandit** · 17th August 2010, 16:42

Anyway ... that was fun ... but next thing we'll be discussing Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Fields and how one person in Godzone learning to handle the new R1 will help the rest of us become better riders ...

**Edbear** · 17th August 2010, 16:43

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Yes .. but all observation is intertwined with perception. There can be no observation from an objective position. Multiple observers seeing identical outcomes just means they share the same perceptions.

I want to qualify that a little .. because the repetative nature of our apparent world is the basis of our functioning within it. Gravity always causes things to fall towards each other ... friction allows us to walk ...

However, how we break up and label the world is tied up with our perceptions, which are developed and indoctirnated with language and the culture we grew up in. (Read Kant .. )

Are you referring to philosophical debate or scientific experiment and observation?

**slofox** · 17th August 2010, 16:51

Originally Posted by avgas

... all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves...

The older I get and the closer I get to death, the more I begin to suspect just exactly this...

My old man said to me not long before he kicked the bucket "It's all a big fat nothing son..."

I reckon the old bugger was on to it, meself...

**Banditbandit** · 17th August 2010, 16:54

Originally Posted by Edbear

Are you referring to philosophical debate or scientific experiment and observation?

Hmmm ... the philosophy has to underpin the science. Berkley started it ... Kant had a hand in it ... then Ayers and co (the logical positivists) had a go ...

Science is generally not what most people think it is ... Try Feyerabend .. my favourite philospher of science ...

**hayd3n** · 17th August 2010, 17:00

just forget about all this and go for a ride, thats where the fun physics are

**Hans** · 17th August 2010, 17:22

Originally Posted by Edbear

Would it not be observation of measurable experiments? Not dependent upon the perceptions of the observer but the observer simply records the results, not affecting the outcome.

How does it apply that the situation of the observer affects the outcome?

a) Correct.

b) It does in relativistic physics. For example: As the relative speed of an observer and an object increases, the object appears shorter. In other words: As the relative speed approaches the speed of light, the relative length approaches zero. Relative speed is a "situation". Excuse my engrish, maybe I should have used the word "state"