Theres been a weird science story in the news recently, the sort of thing more normally found in the pages of Fortean Times. In an article in the journal Nature, japanese physicists conject that our universe is in fact a hologram projected through space and time from an alternate, flatter 2D reality in another dimension(but then Spock knew that all along !!) More details here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-ph
Link to the nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328#/b1
404 - Not found. However most theories concerning the structure and origin of the universe sound like science fiction Actually, I'd be cautious with defining any of them 'facts': there are many theories which contraddict each other, yet all are possibly true. New working link anyway?
A long time ago I stopped relying on common sense to understand the universe. The truth is a lot more spectacular than any ape can hope to speculate on.
Given that I probably only exist in two dimensions (assuming that I exist at all and I'm not merely a pseudo sentient part of a computer simulation) I would like to point out that if you think I'm fat you're looking at me from the wrong angle.
I have difficulty reconciling the conceptual leaps of imagination required to make sense of the theory with the fact that it seems to be underpinned with mathematical computations which are (presumably)based on some firm scientific foundations. It seems to be a case of dry theoretical calculations being spun into something more digestable for those outside the field.I guess most research today is financially led and capturing the public's attention is a means of attracting funding.
I think with this sort of theoretical research, the commercial application isn't immediately obvious, but by better understanding how our universe operates we are later able to exploit it better. For example, we wouldn't be able to operate GPS satellites without a good understanding of relativity. I think there's also some virtue to people as a whole being scientifically literate and understanding the universe we live in, even if only for its own sake.
Could someone physicsy explain what the hell was published? I have no clue about physics outside chemical calculations.
I think it means the guy who got taken the mickey out of for saying the sky was painted on was kind of right
Bagh. As a Biologist this makes me bitter. Especially since I've seen so much worth while research go down the drain due to restricted funds. And then to hear physicists bladding on about things that quite frankly don't matter or receiving $9bn gifts to discover what makes things heavy. But hey I'm biased.
Biologists dismissing research they don't understand as being not worthwhile because it doesn't involve poking sacks of goo? I'm shocked.
I understand it perfectly, just hard to reconcile it's relevance when I'm working with chronic CRC patients...
How much biology research relies on equipment that is the result of seemingly irrelevant physics research that has happened in the past? Just because you don't see why it is relevant now, doesn't mean that the implications for that research wont be huge in the future.
Ratios son, ratios. Both for funding, and for impact on the other sciences. I'm not saying all physics is irrelevant, just that I don't want to hear physicist talking about things that boarder on the metaphysical and/or philosophical when I'm seeing so many research departments shutting down or restricted thanks to funding limitations. Maybe as an outsider you don't quite understand how it feels, but for me I'm in the thick of it. Also, do you seriously want to play that card when the topic is about a hologram universes? xD This theory boarders on solipsism, which I have very little patience for. And they are clearly receiving some money if they've published in Nature.
I'm in research too, so trust me, I know how it feels, but I think you're going to lose a battle in terms of funding disparities. In the UK, there are two funding bodies for 'life science' research - the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council with combined budgets of ~£1.2bn. Physics shares a funding body with Engineering, Mathematics and Information Sciences and has a budget of £800m. It might be different in other countries, but I doubt it. You're making judgements on the mainstream media's take away of the research, not the research itself. As a scientist (I assume that's what you are given your statements above) you should be more than a little embarrassed. At least read the abstracts and conclusions of the paper before you criticise it. The work was supported by various young scientist and NSF grants. Hardly big money. And publishing in Nature magazine is evidence that the work is of broad scientific interest, not of money.
Will you take The red or blue pill? I once read the earth was flat, and all those shining things in the sky revolved around it. Kind of like the earth was the center of the universe or something.
