Scientific American's Holographic Universe article

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Any comments on it?

So, what do hardcore "the universe is energy and matter" folks say?

What do Occam's Razor nutriders say about this evidence based, theory of the universe?

:)

[JamesM]

It was discussed in this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23722

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Any comments on it?

So, what do hardcore "the universe is energy and matter" folks say?

What do Occam's Razor nutriders say about this evidence based, theory of the universe?

:)
"Occam's Razor nutriders"? Assuming you read the article, you realize that the author made a point of mentioning that it is not possible to distinguish between existing in the 4D universe and existing in the 5D hologram, so exactly what do you mean by calling his theory "evidence-based"?

[JamesM]

There was something I didn't quite understand about the article. It appears to have been theoretically established that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a 5D superstring anti-de Sitter spacetime and a 4D quantum field anti-de Sitter spacetime.

But the author then goes on to point out that our universe does not resemble anti-de Sitter spacetime, but a Friedmann-Robinson-Walker universe, for which the previous black-hole discussion does not apply in terms of determining the holographic bound. Raphael Bousso's modified holographic bound is then introduced, but rather briefly and vaguely and I couldn't work out if it solved the problem.

So, can someone cleverer than me tell me if there are any theoretical results which suggest that the holographic concept that has been confirmed to exist for the anti-de Sitter case has been confirmed for the FRW case? Otherwise, it seems to me that there is no evidence that the universe we inhabit is holographic.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Any comments on it?

So, what do hardcore "the universe is energy and matter" folks say?

What do Occam's Razor nutriders say about this evidence based, theory of the universe?

:)

Wow, no straw men there, are there?

Yowsa, yowsa, yowsa, step right up, get those nutriders, yowsa, yowsa,yowsa.

Btw, how ever does Occam's Razor have anything to say here? (Hint, parsimony would seem to be preserved if the theory IS right.)

[T'ai Chi]

Evidence, like black holes, entropy, surface area, and stuff like that.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Any comments on it?



RRRRrrrrrooooowwwwwwwww.

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF_1.jpg